Collins v. Neal et al

Filing 27

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 20 MOTION for Reconsideration re 17 Opinion and Order,,,, Add and Terminate Parties,,, filed by Brian K Collins. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 4/25/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
BRIAN K. COLLINS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CAUSE NO.: 3:17-CV-972-RLM-MGG

RON NEAL, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Brian K. Collins, a prisoner without a lawyer, has filed a motion to
reconsider the screening order that allowed to proceed against several
defendants on a failure to protect claim about an assault that occurred on
February 13, 2016, but dismissed Charles Whelan and Daniel Bodiovich because
the two-year statute of limitations barred the claims against them. ECF 17. Mr.
Collins argues that he should be allowed to proceed against Charles Whelan and
Daniel Bodiovich because he named them as John Doe defendants in his initial
complaint, which was filed within the limitations period. He essentially argues
that the claims in his amended complaint should relate back to the date he filed
the initial complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c). The relation back doctrine does
not apply to John Doe defendants. Wudtke v. Davel, 128 F.3d 1057, 1060 (7th
Cir. 1997); Delgado-Brunet v. Clark, 93 F.3d 339, 344 (7th Cir. 1996).
Mr. Collins also suggests that his claims against Charles Whelan and
Daniel Bodiovich would have been timely but for the court denying his attempts
to discover their identity. The court didn’t receive any discovery requests from

Mr. Collins until March 6, 2018, three weeks after the limitations period had
run. ECF 7. Those discovery requests sought information about a therapist who
provided medical treatment six months after the assault, and wouldn’t have
revealed the identity of Charles Whelan and Daniel Bodiovich, who Mr. Collins
identifies as the Head of Internal Affairs and the Head of Classification.
Mr. Collins further argues that the defendants have refused to respond to
his discovery requests about the identity of John Doe defendants. Mr. Collins
hasn’t shown that he has served the defendants with any such discovery
requests. See N. D. Ind. L. R. 26-2(a)(2)(A) (“All discovery material in cases
involving a pro se party must be filed”). Moreover, the defendants, who were just
recently served and have not yet filed an answer, are under no obligation to
respond to discovery requests at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), 26(d), (f).
In sum, Mr. Collins didn’t name Charles Whelan and Daniel Bodiovich as
defendants within the two-year limitations period. The relation back doctrine
doesn’t apply to these defendants, and Mr. Collins asserts no equitable grounds
to excuse his untimely claims against them.
For these reasons, the court DENIES the motion to reconsider (ECF 20).
SO ORDERED on April 25, 2018
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2