Opinion
02 Civ. 1707 (BSJ) (RLE).
September 7, 2006
MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff, Anthony T. Mackey ("Mackey"), commenced this action on March 5, 2002, against defendant police officers Dicaprio, Lawrence, and Potanovic, as well as the Yonkers Police Department ("defendants"), alleging civil rights violations during his arrest on September 25, 2001, in the City of Yonkers. Pending before the Court is Mackey's motion to amend the complaint ("Compl.") pursuant to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mackey wishes to add the following parties as defendants: St. Joseph's Medical Center, the City of Yonkers, the County of Westchester, police commissioner Joseph Cassino, and two police officers referred to as "John Does," one assigned to a K-9 dog, and one supervising officer. Mackey's proposed amended complaint, Notice of Motion, Exh. B ("Amended Compl."), also provides further clarification and detail to his factual allegations. For the reasons which follow, Mackey's motion to amend is DENIED with respect to all proposed defendants, and GRANTED only with respect to the more detailed factual allegations related to those defendants named in his original complaint.
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of right before a responsive pleading is served or within twenty days after the pleading is served. FRCP 15(a). A party may also amend its pleading with written consent from the opposing party or by filing a motion for leave to amend with the Court. Id. Rule 15(a) specifies that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice so requires. Since this rule is interpreted liberally, Rachman Bag Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 46 F.3d 230, 234 (2d Cir. 1995), an amendment is normally permitted, and the refusal to grant leave without justification is "inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal Rules." Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). It remains, however, within the discretion of the Court whether to allow amendment. Id. ; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Amerford Int'l Corp., 22 F.3d 458, 462 (2d Cir. 1994). An amendment that is sought after discovery has been closed, for undue delay, or in bad faith, for instance, may be denied because of prejudice to the defendant. Finlay v. Simonovich, 1997 WL 746460, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 1997).When the statute of limitations would otherwise bar an amendment, Rule 15(c) allows the claim if it "relates back" to the original complaint. See FRCP 15(c)(3); Soto v. Brooklyn Corr. Facility, 80 F.3d 34, 35 (2d Cir. 1996). Under Rule 15(c), a claim against a new defendant relates back to the original claim if: (1) the new claim arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence set forth in the original pleading; (2) the new party has received notice of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in its defense; (3) the new party knows or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the party, the action would have been brought against the party; and (4) the second and the third criteria must have been fulfilled within 120 days of the filing of the original complaint. See FRCP 15(c); Soto, 80 F.3d at 35-36; Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466, 468-69 (2d Cir. 1995), modified on other grounds, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1995). A "mistake in identifying a defendant occurs for purposes of Rule 15(c) when it is the result of "misnomer or misidentification," or when a plaintiff omits the individual defendant altogether thinking that suing a department will suffice. Barrow, 66 F.3d at 469. Rule 15(c) does not allow an amended complaint adding new defendants to relate back if the newly-added defendants were not named originally because the plaintiff did not know their identities. Id. at 470.
Defendants declined to formally oppose Mackey's motion, but did state simply that the amendment would be futile, arguing that Mackey has not put forth any evidence to substantiate the underlying claim or any facts to support a claim of municipal liability under Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
1. St. Joseph's Medical Center
According to Mackey's proposed amended complaint, after his arrest by the City of Yonkers Police Department, he was taken to the emergency room at St. Joseph's Medical Center ("Center"), where he was treated for various injuries. Amended Compl. ¶ 34. X-rays and a CAT scan were taken. Id. ¶ 35. Mackey alleges that the Center has "attempted to withhold the reports of treatment by alleging that the Plaintiff was not at their hospital" on the date at issue. Id. ¶ 43. As an Eighth Cause of Action, Mackey claims that the Center has "acted in conspiracy with the defendants" by withholding the documents he requested in a subpoena he served. Id. ¶ 98.
As there are no other allegations involving the Center in Mackey's amended complaint, it appears that he is asking for leave to add the Center as a defendant solely because he has, as yet, been unable to obtain copies of his medical records from his treatment there. This would be an improper use of litigation. Mackey has made no allegations against the Center which make out a proper claim and which would require allowing him to add the Center as a defendant. Therefore, Mackey's request to amend his complaint by adding the Center and its employees is DENIED.
2. Proposed Municipal and Supervisory Defendants
Mackey has properly alleged a Monell claim by alleging that the City of Yonkers, the County of Westchester, and the police commissioner are guilty of negligent hiring, training and supervision of the police officers involved in his arrest. See Amended Compl. ¶¶ 65-85. In particular, Mackey refers to previous incidents by alleging that there have been "numerous complaints . . . [of] abuse, discrimination and assault and battery by their police." Id. ¶ 66. It appears that Mackey himself may have made previous complaints. See id. ¶ 68. Mackey specifically alleges that there is a history of a failure to supervise officers in the K-9 unit in the proper use of the dog. Id. ¶ 74.
However, Mackey's motion to add this claim, filed in June of 2006, is untimely because the statute of limitations for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is three years, see Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 76, 79 (2d Cir. 2002), and the incident at issue took place in September of 2001. As noted above, the relation-back doctrine could allow an untimely amendment, but in this case, Mackey's Monell claim, which would require adding new municipal and supervisory defendants, does not meet the requirements. The claim "arises out of the same conduct, transaction or occurrence," FRCP 15(c)(2), but fails in all other respects. The new parties, the City of Yonkers, County of Westchester, police commissioner Joseph Cassino, and the "John Doe" supervising officer, while likely aware of Mackey's suit against the individual police officers and the police department, have had no notice that a claim of negligent hiring or supervision could be at issue. Mackey's original complaint is limited to the facts of the assault that took place during his arrest. See Compl. ¶¶ IV-V. While a pro se prisoner's submissions are to be liberally construed, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), the Court could find no allegations that hinted at problems with policy, practice, supervision, or hiring. Similarly, Mackey does not contend any mistake concerning identity. See FRCP 15(c)(3)(B).
Limitations periods are also subject to the doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, both of which, when applicable, can salvage a plaintiff's otherwise time-barred § 1983 claim. Branch v. Guilderland Cent. School Dist., 239 F. Supp. 2d 242, 250 (N.D.N.Y. 2003); see Young v. United States, 535 U.S. 43 (2002) (equitable tolling); Leon v. Murphy, 988 F.2d 303, 310 (2d Cir. 1993) (equitable estoppel). The two doctrines place blame for untimely filings on the defendants. Branch, 239 F. Supp. 2d at 250; see Redlich v. Albany Law School of Union Univ., 899 F. Supp. 100, 104 (N.D.N.Y. 1995). Mackey has not argued, and the facts before the Court do not appear to present, any circumstances which would extend the statute of limitations on Mackey's Monell claim for any equitable reasons. Therefore, his motion to amend his complaint to add a Monell claim and the corresponding municipal and supervisory defendants is DENIED.
3. "John Doe" K-9 Officer
Mackey has also proposed to name another police officer involved with the K-9 unit and purportedly present at the incident underlying his claims. However, the proposed amended complaint does not explain the role of this officer or even mention his involvement in the event. More critically, Mackey's original complaint does not mention the presence of another officer aside from those he named. If this officer exists, he would have had no notice of Mackey's claim against him and therefore the proposed amendment fails the requirements of Rule 15(c)(3). Mackey's motion to name a "John Doe" police officer is DENIED.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mackey's motion is DENIED with respect to all proposed new defendants. His motion is GRANTED only with respect to the additional detail he wishes to provide in terms of his factual allegations. However, all additions relating to the new proposed defendants should be omitted from the amended complaint. Mackey is directed to file his amended complaint, adding only his more detailed factual allegations describing the incident and the role of the existing defendants, by September 18, 2006. In addition, in the future, Mackey must be certain to serve a copy of all submissions to the Court to all defendants.
SO ORDERED.