Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Worthington v. Wilson

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureRelation BackAmendment of PleadingsStatute of LimitationsRule 11Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)relation backmistake requirement

Facts

Worthington alleged that during his February 25, 1989 arrest, officers twisted his already injured hand, wrestled him to the ground, handcuffed him, and lifted him by the handcuffs, causing broken bones in his left hand. On February 25, 1991, the last day of Illinois' two-year limitations period, he sued the Village and "three unknown named police officers" under § 1983. On June 17, 1991, he filed an amended complaint substituting Officers Dave Wilson and Jeff Wall for the unknown officers. Worthington and his counsel had not known the officers' names when the original complaint was filed.

Issue

Does an amendment substituting named police officers for previously unnamed "unknown police officers" relate back under Rule 15(c) when the plaintiff originally lacked knowledge of the officers' identities rather than having made a mistake about their names? Also, could Rule 11 sanctions be imposed for a pleading first filed in state court before removal?

Rule

Under Rule 15(c), relation back is permitted only when the failure to name the proper party was due to a mistake concerning the identity of that party; it is not permitted when the plaintiff simply lacked knowledge of the proper party's identity. Under Illinois fraudulent concealment principles, tolling requires affirmative acts or words by the defendant that prevented discovery; mere silence or the plaintiff's failure to learn the cause of action is insufficient. Rule 11 does not authorize a federal court to sanction counsel for pleadings filed in state court before removal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

On the last day of the limitations period, Lena Ortiz filed a federal civil-rights suit in Chicago against the City of Halston and "two unknown transit officers" who allegedly used excessive force during her detention. Ninety days later, after obtaining internal records, she amended to name Officers Nolan Pike and Trevor Ames; both learned of the suit within the Rule 4 service period.

Should the amendment naming Pike and Ames relate back under Rule 15(c)?

Explanation. Relation back requires more than same-occurrence allegations and timely notice. The added party also must have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against that party. An amendment replacing unknown defendants with newly discovered names does not satisfy that requirement when the plaintiff simply did not know who the proper defendants were. That is lack of knowledge, not mistake.