West v. City of Paris et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: the Court ORDERS that the 12 MOTION of Dfts Breslin & Morris, in their individual capacities, for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED, and they are DISMISSED as parties to this action. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on June 19, 2014. (MWZ) cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON
)
)
)
) Action No. 5:13-CV-193-JMH
)
)
)
) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
)
)
)

MARK WEST
Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF PARIS, et al.,
Defendants.

Currently
Defendants,
individual
pursuant

to

**
before

Shane

**
the

Breslin

capacities,
Rule

12(c)

Procedure [DE #12].
ripe for review.

for
of

**
**
Court is
and

Steven

judgment
the

**
the

motion

Morris,
on

Federal

the
Rules

of

in

the

their

pleadings
of

Civil

This motion is fully briefed and is

For the reasons set forth below, their

motion will be granted.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This civil rights action arises out of the arrest of

the plaintiff, Mark West, on June 23, 2012. Specifically,
West alleges that while he was in the process of breaking
up a physical fight between two of his friends in the front
yard of his property, he was struck from behind by one or
more members of the City of Paris Police Department.

He

alleges that they struck him with their nightclubs, fists,

flashlights and shoes.

He also alleges that one of the

officers

on

used

handcuffed

a

and

taser

arrested,

him.

after

West

which

he

choked and the taser was again used on him.

was

ultimately

claims

he

was

As a result of

the officers’ actions, West claims he suffered injuries to
his leg, head, and face.

Following his arrest, West was

indicted by a grand jury on charges of disorderly conduct,
resisting

arrest,

and

alcohol

intoxication.

He

subsequently pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in the
second degree.
West filed this civil rights action on June 20, 2013,
against the City of Paris, the Paris Police Department,
four

named

police

officers

with

the

Paris

Police

Department, and “[u]nkown defendants” including “at least
two other Officers who work or worked for the Paris Police
Department. . . .” [DE #1, p. 3].

His complaint asserts a

claim for excessive force in violation of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a
state law claim for assault and battery.
2014,

West

sought

leave

to

amend

his

On January 15,
complaint

on

the

grounds that he had discovered the identity of the unknown
defendants referenced in his original Complaint [DE #6].
His

tendered

Amended

Complaint

named

Shane

Breslin,

individually and in his official capacity as an employee
2

for

the

City

of

Paris,

and

Officer

Steven

Morris,

individually and in his official capacity as an employee
for

the

West’s

City
motion

of

Paris

for

[DE

leave

#6-1].

to

The

amend,

Court

and

sustained

West’s

Amended

Complaint was filed on February 19, 2014 [DE #7].
II.

THE MOTION OF BRESLIN AND MORRIS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS [DE #12]
On March 21, 2014, Defendants Breslin and Morris filed
their motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule
12(c).

In support of their motion, they argue that the

statute of limitations has run on West’s claims against
them.

There is no dispute that the statute of limitations

for both a federal § 1983 action and a claim for assault
and

battery

under

Kentucky

law

is

one

year.

KRS

413.140(a); see also Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 267-68
(1985).

Because

the

events

underlying

West’s

claims

occurred on June 23, 2012, the statute of limitations for
any

claims

based

on

§

1983

and

battery expired on June 23, 2013.

state

law

assault

and

West, however, did not

assert any claims against Officers Breslin and Morris until
January 15, 2014, when he sought leave to file his first
Amended Complaint.

Those claims are well outside of the

applicable

of

statute

limitations

3

and

are

time-barred

unless

they

relate

back

to

the

original,

timely-filed

Complaint.
Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
governs

relation

back

of

amendments.

It

provides,

in

relevant part:
(c)

Relation Back of Amendments.
(1)

When
an
Amendment
Relates
Back.
An
amendment to a pleading relates back to the
date of the original pleading when:

. . .
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense
that arose out of the conduct, transaction,
or occurrence set out - or attempt to be set
out - in the original pleading; or
(C)

the amendment changes the party or the
naming of the party against whom a claim is
asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied
and if, within the period provided by Rule
4(m) for serving the summons and complaint,
the party to be brought in by amendment:
(i)

received such notice of the action that
it will not be prejudiced in defending
on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the
action would have been brought against
it, but for a mistake concerning the
proper party’s identity.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c).

Because the amended complaint arises

out of the same occurrence as the original complaint namely, the events of June 23, 2012 - the first element is
satisfied.
disputed.
amended

Here,

the

second

and

third

elements

are

Defendants Breslin and Morris argue that West’s
complaint

fails

the
4

third

element

of

Rule

15(c)(1)(C) and thus does not relate back because West’s
asserted lack of knowledge about their identities does not
satisfy the mistake prerequisite of Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii).
The Court agrees.
The

Sixth

“[s]ubstituting

Circuit

has

clearly

named

defendant

for

a

held
a

that

“John

Doe’

defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere
substitution of parties.”
240 (6th Cir. 1996).
“such

amendments

requirement”

of

Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230,

In Cox, the court held that because

do

not

Rule

satisfy

15(c)(1)(C),

the

‘mistaken

the

identity’

amended

complaint

naming specific police officers did not relate back to the
original complaint which listed “unnamed police officers”
of the City of Louisville and Kentucky State Police.

Id.

Later, in Force v. City of Memphis, 101 F.3d 702, 1996 WL
665609

(6th

Cir.

Nov.

14,

1996)

(unpublished

table

decision), the Sixth Circuit confirmed that an amendment
after the statute of limitation had run seeking to replace
“Several Unknown City of Memphis Police Officers” in the
original

complaint

with

back under Rule 15(c).

named

officers

would

not

relate

The Sixth Circuit then reaffirmed

this rule in Moore v. Tennessee, 267 F. App’x 450, 455 (6th
Cir. 2008), holding that “a plaintiff’s lack of knowledge
pertaining

to

an

intended

defendant’s
5

identity

does

not

constitute

a

‘mistake

concerning

the

party’s

identity’

within the meaning of Rule 15(c).”
In this case, West failed to name Defendants Breslin
and Morris in the original Complaint because he did not
know their names at the time.
caselaw,

his

“mistake”

lack

of

requirement

Under clear Sixth Circuit

knowledge
of

Rule

does

not

satisfy

15(c)(1)(C)(ii).

the

Because

Rule 15(c)(1)(C)’s third element - the mistake requirement
- is dispositive of the issue, the Court need not decide
whether the second element - the notice requirement - is
satisfied.

Accordingly, the motion of Defendants Breslin

and Morris for judgment on the pleadings will be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
For

the

reasons

set

forth

above,

the

Court

hereby

ORDERS that the motion of Defendants Breslin and Morris, in
their individual capacities, for judgment on the pleadings
[DE #12] is GRANTED, and they are DISMISSED as parties to
this action.
This the 19th day of June, 2014.

6