Enyart v. Karnes et al

Filing 104

Opinion and Order denying 101 Motion to Amend Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/02/11. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RICHARD E. ENYART, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:09-CV-687
Judge Smith
Magistrate Judge King

SHERIFF JIM KARNES, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that he
was denied due process in connection with an alleged assault by other
inmates while plaintiff was detained in the Franklin County Jail.

By

previous filings, plaintiff asserted claims against the Franklin
County Sheriff, in both his individual and official capacities, 1
employees of the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, 2 and Franklin
County.3

On April 29, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file

yet another amended complaint.

Doc. No. 101.

In that motion,

plaintiff seeks to add “two groups” of defendants.
alia, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and (c)).

Id. (citing, inter

Specifically, plaintiff

proposes to assert claims against Columbus Police officers arising out
of the search of his home and his arrest in 2007, and the inmates at
the Franklin County Jail who allegedly assaulted plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, Doc. No. 101, pp.
1

Those claims have been dismissed.

2

Opinion and Order, Doc. No. 92.

Those defendants have not yet been served with process.
Certificate of Mailing by Clerk, Doc. No. 97.
3

See

The undersigned has recommended that Franklin County be dismissed.
Order and Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 96.

2-3.4
Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs
requests to amend a party’s pleadings and provides that “[t]he court
should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”

F.R.

Civ. P. 15(a)(2). However, leave to amend is properly denied where the
claim sought to be asserted by the amendment would not survive a
motion to dismiss.

Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684, 692 (6th Cir.

2006)(“A district court may deny a plaintiff leave to amend his or her
complaint. . . when the proposed amendment would be futile.”) Because
the claims sought to be asserted against the proposed new parties
could not survive a motion to dismiss, the Court will deny the motion.
The events underlying the Complaint, which was filed on August 6,
2009, are alleged to have occurred in August 2007.
No. 2, ¶¶ 9, 12.
42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Complaint, Doc.

State statutes of limitations apply to claims under
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268-69, 275 (1985).

For civil rights actions filed in Ohio under § 1983, the statute of
limitations is two (2) years from the date that the cause of action
accrued.

O.R.C. § 2305.10; Browning v. Pendleton, 869 F.2d 989, 990

(6th Cir. 1989) (en banc).

Because the statute of limitations has now

expired as to any § 1983 claim arising out of the events of August
2007, the claims sought to be asserted in plaintiff’s proposed amended
complaint would be untimely and barred by the statute of limitations
unless the proposed amendments relate back to the original Complaint.
Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
relation back of proposed amendments.

More specifically, under Rule

15(c)(1), an amendment adding a new defendant relates back to the

4

Plaintiff also suggests that he may yet seek to assert claims against a
third new category of defendants. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the
Complaint, Doc. No. 101, pp. 3-4.

2

original complaint where:
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the
party against whom a claim is asserted . . . if, within the
period provided by Rule 4(m) 5 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)(1).

See also Moore v. Tennessee, No. 06-6148,

267 Fed. Appx. 450, at *455 (6th Cir. March 3, 2008) (“Notably, the
relation-back doctrine requires that the newly added party receive
sufficient notice of the action and that the delay in the addition of
the new party be the result of a ‘mistake concerning the party’s
identity.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)).
In the case sub judice, it is clear that the proposed new parties
did not receive notice of the action within 120 days after the
Complaint was filed in August 2009.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Thus,

plaintiff has not shown that the proposed new defendants received
sufficient notice of the action within the appropriate time period.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(C)(i).

Moreover, plaintiff has not

established that his failure to join the proposed new defendants was a
consequence of “a mistake concerning the . . . identity” of each
proposed new defendant.

A “lack of knowledge pertaining to an

intended defendant’s identity does not constitute a ‘mistake
concerning the party’s identity’ within the meaning of Rule 15(c).”
Moore, 267 Fed. Appx. 450, at *455 (citing Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d
230, 240 (6th Cir. 1996)).

Under these circumstances, plaintiff has

5

Rule 4(m) requires that a defendant be served with process “within 120
days after the complaint is filed . . . .”

3

not satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) and the
proposed new claims do not relate back to the filing of the original
Complaint.
Because the proposed new claims sought to be asserted by
plaintiff are untimely and would not survive a motion to dismiss, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, Doc.
No. 101.

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
May 2, 2011

4