Neal v. Wilson et al

Filing 131

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 128 SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint and Add Party to Suit addressed to Judge Ronnie Abrams from Thomas P Higgins dated Dec. 1, 2017 filed by Christopher Neal. Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty days adding Sergeant Kaiser as a Defendant. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 1/5/2018) (anc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED: I
If?

I 5(

CHRISTOPHER NEAL,
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 15-CV-2822 (RA)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

POLICE OFFICER ROMAINE WILSON, et
al.,
Defendants.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
On September 15, 2017, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion
for summary judgment, allowing Plaintiffs excessive force and failure to intervene claims to
proceed to trial. ECF No. 120. As the Court noted in its Opinion, there remains the issue of
whether Plaintiff should be allowed to further amend his Complaint to add Sergeant Kaiser as a
Defendant. Although Judge Gorenstein denied Plaintiffs motion to amend, he does not appear to
have considered Plaintiffs request to add Sergeant Kaiser. See ECF No. 105, at 1. After reviewing
the parties' supplemental briefing, the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be permitted to add
Sergeant Kaiser as a Defendant because, although the statute of limitations has run, Plaintiffs
claim relates back under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 15(c) allows a plaintiff to add a defendant after the statute of limitations has run if
four conditions are met. Defendants do not contest that the first two prongs of the relation back
doctrine are satisfied here: (1) the law that provides the statute of limitations allows for relation
back and (2) the allegation against Sergeant Kaiser "aris[ es] out of the conduct, transaction, or
occurrence set out" in the original pleading. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(l)(A), (B). Moreover, the
third prong is met because knowledge of the allegations were imputed to Sergeant Kaiser upon

service of the Amended Complaint on the other officers who, like Sergeant Kaiser, are represented
by Corporation Counsel. See Curry v. Campbell, No. 06-CV-2841 (DRH) (ETB), 2012 WL
1004894, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2012).
The closer question is with respect to the final prong: whether Sergeant Kaiser "knew or
should have known that the action would have been brought against [him], but for a mistake
concerning [his] identity." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(l)(C)(ii). The Supreme Court's guidance in
Krupski v. Costa Crociere Sp.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010), is instructive. As in that case, Plaintiff's

failure to name Sergeant Kaiser in the Second Amended Complaint was not a "deliberate" choice
which now forecloses relief under the relation back doctrine. See id. at 555-56. Rather, it is evident
from Plaintiff's initial Complaint that he always intended to assert a claim against the officer who
allegedly used a taser, and Defendants were aware that Sergeant Kaiser was that individual. See
ECF No. 16, at 1. Plaintiff, however, filed the Second Amended Complaint under the mistaken
belief that Lieutenant Camhi was the officer Plaintiff alleges used a taser, an error due, at least in
part, to the omission of any reference to Sergeant Kaiser in Defendants' Rule 26(f) disclosures.
See ECF No. 128, Ex. 1. Plaintiff's confusion is even more apparent in light of his subsequent

discovery requests. See, e.g., ECF No. 38.
Defendants' reliance upon cases in which courts have denied plaintiffs leave to amend in
order to substitute the proper names of John Doe defendants is unavailing. It is true that, under
Rule 15, the failure to provide the name of a John Doe defendant is not a mistake, but instead
evinces a lack of knowledge. See, e.g., Vasconcellos v. City of New York, No. 12-CV-8445 (CM),
2014 WL 4961441, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2014).

Here, however, Plaintiff amended his

Complaint to include the names of the John Doe Defendants within the period specified by the

2

Court's Valentin order. 1 But in doing so, he acted under the mistaken belief that Lieutenant Camhi,
rather than Sergeant Kaiser, was the officer who allegedly used a taser-a misunderstanding
Defendants were well aware of at the time.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within thirty
days adding Sergeant Kaiser as a Defendant.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 5, 2018
New York, New York
Ronnie Abrams
United States District Judge

1

Defendants submitted a partial response to the Court's Valentin order on October 9, 20 l 5. ECF No. l 6.
Thereafter, however, some confusion arose as to whether Defendants were subject to Local Rule 33 .2 and
apparently no further infonnation as to the identities of the officers present at the scene of Plaintiffs
arrest was disclosed until Defendants provided their Rule 26(f) initial disclosures on November 17, 2015.
See ECF No. l 28, Ex. l .. Plaintiff then filed the Second Amended Complaint within thirty days of
receiving the Rule 26(f) disclosures. ECF No. 30.

3