Archie et al v. Budget Rent a Car System, Inc. et al

Filing 93

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER:Tthat the defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 85 , 87 ) be, and are hereby, GRANTED. A separate judgment shallenter concurrently herewith. Signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 9/7/2021.(ECO)cc: COR and Sarnaa Archie by US Mail

Case: 2:18-cv-00179-WOB-CJS Doc #: 93 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 535

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION AT COVINGTON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:18-CV-179 (WOB-CJS)
SARNAA ARCHIE,
VS.

PLAINTIFF,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BUDGET RENT A CAR
SYSTEM, INC., ET AL

DEFENDANTS.

This matter is before the Court on the defendants’ motions to
dismiss. (Docs. 85, 87). Both defendants argue that the plaintiff’s
claims are barred by the statute of limitations because the
plaintiff’s claims do not relate back. (Id.) For the reasons
outlined below, this Court agrees.
Factual and Procedural Background
Sarnaa Archie is a pro se plaintiff bringing this civil rights
action against Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport
and detective Kenneth Coyle individually and in his official
capacity with the airport (collectively “Airport Defendants”).
(Doc. 60).
This matter was originally filed against Budget Rent A Car
Systems, Inc. and Avis Budget Car Rentals, LLC, alleging race
discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, racial discrimination
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000a, racial discrimination pursuant to

1

Case: 2:18-cv-00179-WOB-CJS Doc #: 93 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 2 of 5 - Page ID#: 536

the

Kentucky

Civil

Rights

Act,

wrongful

imprisonment,

and

fraudulent inducement on September 20, 2018. (Doc. 46-2).
These claims stem from Archie and his former co-plaintiff,
Jameel Bembry, being detained at CVG Airport after they were
mistakenly identified as suspects stealing rental cars. (Id. at ¶¶
34-36, 44).

Archie and Bembry retained counsel

to file this

lawsuit, but on August 6, 2019, their attorneys moved to withdraw
from the case. (Doc. 33).
This Court granted a brief stay on discovery while the
plaintiffs tried to secure counsel, but they ultimately opted to
proceed

pro

se.

(Doc.

37-38,

41).

On

March

4,

2020,

Bembry

voluntarily dismissed his claims with prejudice against the car
rental defendants. (Doc. 45).
On March 31, 2020, the car rental defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment against Archie, (Doc. 46), and Archie filed
a motion to amend his complaint on July 23, 2020, (Doc. 53).
Archie’s amended complaint dismissed several causes of action
against the car rental defendants, added new claims against them,
and added new claims against the Airport Defendants. (Doc. 53-2).
This Court ultimately granted Archie’s request to amend his
complaint over the car rental defendants’ objection. (Doc. 59).
Archie

was

able

to

reach

a

settlement

with

the

car

rental

defendants shortly thereafter, but he sought to continue the
pursuit of his claims against the Airport Defendants. (Doc. 67).

2

Case: 2:18-cv-00179-WOB-CJS Doc #: 93 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 3 of 5 - Page ID#: 537

Service on the Airport Defendants was eventually executed on
July 7, 2021. (Doc. 79). The Airport Defendants filed responsive
pleadings against Archie’s claims, arguing he cannot state a claim
upon which relief can be granted because his claims are timebarred (Docs. 85, 87).
Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain
“sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to
relief that is plausible upon its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S.

662,

678

(2009)

(citation

and

internal

quotation

marks

omitted). While the Court construes the complaint in favor of the
complaining

party,

the

Court

need

not

accept

as

true

legal

conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Kardules v. City of
Columbus, 95 F.3d 1335, 1346 (6th Cir. 1996); Lujan v. Defs. of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
Analysis
Archie’s amended complaint asserts the following causes of
action against the Airport Defendants: (1)

42 U.S.C. § 1985

(Conspiracy); (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth Amendment violations);
(3) KRS § 502.020 (failure to intervene). (Doc. 60).
The problem for Archie, however, is that each of these causes
of action have a one-year statute of limitations.1 See Collard v.

Archie does not contest the one-year statute of limitations on
his claims. (Doc. 90).
1

3

Case: 2:18-cv-00179-WOB-CJS Doc #: 93 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 4 of 5 - Page ID#: 538

Kentucky Bd. of Nursing, 896 F.2d 179, 182 (6th Cir. 1990) (stating
the statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims is one-year
under Kentucky’s analogous personal injury statute of limitations—
KRS § 413.140(1)(a)); Bedford v. Univ. of Louisville Sch. Of Med.,
887 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1989) (borrowing Kentucky’s analogous oneyear statute of limitations for conspiracies—KRS § 413.140(1)(c)).
Archie’s failure to intervene claim is brought pursuant to
KRS

§

502.020,

the

criminal

statute

relating

to

complicit

liability, which is governed by the same conspiracy statute as his
Section 1985 claim because he alleges that “Budget and the CVG
Airport Police conspired in an activity which resulted in the
unjustified search and seizure of Mr. Archie.” (Doc. 60 at 14)
(emphasis added).
Archie does not dispute that his alleged injury accrued on
July 27, 2018, when he and Bembry were stopped at the airport.
(Doc. 60 at 3). He did not seek leave to amend his complaint until
July 23, 2020, almost two years later.2 (Id.) Thus, the time to
file his claims against the Airport defendants has lapsed.
To get around the statute of limitations, Archie argues that
his claims against the Airport Defendant relate back pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). (Doc. 90 at 4). This
argument is misplaced.

2

Leave to amend was granted on December 3, 2020. (Doc. 59).

4

Case: 2:18-cv-00179-WOB-CJS Doc #: 93 Filed: 09/07/21 Page: 5 of 5 - Page ID#: 539

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow for relation
back of otherwise time-barred amendments when the purpose is to
add a party to the case. See Asher v. Unarco Material Handling,
Inc., 596 F.3d 313 (6th Cir. 2010); see also In re Kent Holland
Die Casting & Plating, Inc., 928 F.2d 1448, 1499 (6th Cir. 1991)
(“[T]he precedent of this circuit clearly holds that an amendment
which adds a new party creates a new cause of action, and there is
no

relation

back

to

the

original

filing

for

purposes

of

limitations.”) (Internal quotations omitted).
Here, there is no question that Archie amended his complaint
to add the Airport Defendants as parties, not to substitute them
for a defendant they mistakenly named. To be sure, Archie included
the car rental defendants in his amended complaint and settled
with them. (Docs. 60, 67). Because there has not been a mistake in
a party’s identity, Archie’s claims against the Airport Defendants
do not relate back and are time barred by the applicable statutes
of limitation.
Thus,

having

reviewed

this

matter,

and

the

Court

being

advised,
IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs.
85, 87) be, and are hereby, GRANTED. A separate judgment shall
enter concurrently herewith.
This 7th day of September 2021.

5