Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging correctional officers failed to protect a transgender woman from sexual assault in prison and that a correctional officer sexually assaulted her, ruling the plaintiff’s amended complaint didn’t relate back to the original and is thus time barred.
The plaintiff, Shaun McKinley, filed the lawsuit in March 2022 in the Indiana Southern District Court, naming as defendants “John Doe” 1-6.
The court issued a screening order in August 2022 that identified potentially viable Eighth Amendment claims but dismissed the complaint because the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals “disfavors” lawsuits against unidentified defendants.
The court issued process to the warden of USP Terre Haute and provided McKinley time to conduct discovery to identify the defendants.
During the discovery period, the warden filed two motions to dismiss, arguing that statute of limitations already expired and an amended complaint wouldn’t relate back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).
McKinley, proceeding pro se, filed the amended complaint on May 1. The allegations were the same as the original complaint, but the amended complaint identified the six defendants.
The Friday order from Judge Patrick Hanlon granting the motion to dismiss says the statute of limitations for claims brought under the theory set forth in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), is two years.
The original complaint was filed within that time, but the amended complaint wasn’t.
The amended complaint could still be timely if it “relates back” to the date on which the original complaint was filed, the order says, but Hanlon ruled McKinley didn’t meet the requirements laid out in Rule 15(c)(1).
McKinley’s failure to name the proper defendants arose from a lack of knowledge about their identities, Hanlon wrote, rather than a mistake concerning their identities.
“Ms. McKinley did not mistakenly believe that individuals named ‘John Doe’s 1-6’ had violated her Eighth Amendment rights; instead, she knowingly used ‘John Doe’s 1-6’ as placeholders because did not know the names of the officers who were liable for her injuries,” Hanlon wrote in concluding Rule 15(c)(1)(C) didn’t apply.
The case Shaun Eric McKinley v. John Does 1-6, 2:22-cv-00115, was dismissed with prejudice. Hanlon entered final judgment for the defendants Friday.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.