Af te r e xa m i ni ngthe b r i ef s an d the r ec o r d, we ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t o r ala r g um en t * is u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d
. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United Stat es Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d Jul y 2 2 , 20 09 * Deci ded J uly22 , 20 09 B efo re JO H N L . C O FF E Y , Cir cu i tJudg e JO E L M . FL A U M , Cir cu i tJudg e M IC H A E L S. K A N N E , Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 08
- 3161 PAUL HODGE , Plai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant, v. DA VI D PARKE R, D efend a nt-A pp ellee. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Court f orthe So uthern Dist ri ct o fI nd i ana. No . 1 : 0 5
- c v - 1 7 7 6
- DF H- TAB Dav i d F
. Ham i l to n, Chie f Judg e . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 08
- 3161 Page 2 O R D E R Paul H odge, a f edera l pri sone r, was att acke d by a fel l ow inm ate o n N ove m ber26 , 2003 . N early tw o years later, on N ovem ber 23, 2005, H od ge brou gh t an ac tion un d er Bive ns v. Six U nkno w n N am ed Agents , 40 3 U.S . 38 8 ( 1971 ) , cl ai m i ng tha t Davi d Parke r, a pri son offi ci al, vi ol ate d his Ei ghth Am endm ent r i ghts by f ai l i ng to pro tecthi m fro m the att ack. I n J anuary 20 08 H odge soughtto add add i ti onaldef endants to the sui t under Feder al Rule o fCi vi l Pro cedure 19. The di str i ct c ourtgr anted the m oti on a nd al l owed H odge to am end his co m pla i nt to se t f or th any cl ai m s he m i ght ha ve aga i nst a l l i ntended defe nd ants. Afte r fi l i ng hi s a m ended com pla i nt, H odge fi l ed two add i ti onalm oti ons to j oi n def endants under Rul e 1 9; the cour t deni ed both m oti ons as futi l e a nd pre m atur e. The c o ur t th ens cr ee ne d Hodg e’ s amende d c o m pl ai ntunde r 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 91 5A a nd d ism issed i t for fai lure to state a claim becau se th e suit w as tim e-barred
. Th e cou rt expla i ned that a B iven s cl ai m br ought i n the sta te ofI nd i ana i s s ubj ect to the s tat e’ s t w oye ar st at u te of lim ita tio n s, s e e, e . g. , M yles v . U nited Sta tes , 416 F.3d 551 , 552 (7th C ir. 2005); K ing v. O ne U nk no w n F ed. C o rr. O fficer, 201 F.3d 910 , 913 (7th C ir. 2000), an d that H od ges’s claim s against the n ew ly- ad d ed de fend an ts ha d not bee n tim ely asserted
. Th e cou rt furtherf ound that the cl ai m ag ai nst the newly
- add ed defe nd ants did not“r el ate bac k” und erFe deralRule o fCi vi l Pro cedure 15( c) to the fi l i ng o fthe or i gi nal co m pla i nt be cause th ey w er e n ot “c h ar ge ab le w ith kn ow led ge ” o f H od ge ’s fa ilu re to n am e t h e p ro p er p ar ty . Shortly the reafter the cou rt grante d sum m ary j ud gm en t to Parker. On app ealH odge ar gues that the del ay shoul d be e xcused because Par kerand other pr i so n a utho r i ti es pr ev en te d hi m fr o m i den ti fy i ngthe put at i ve ne w defen dan ts . Buthe provi des no evi dence f orhi s cl ai m thatthe pri son w i thhel d fi l es f ro m hi m o r othe rwis e re fu se d to co m p ly w ith an y re q u es t fo r in for m at ion . See D elga do -B run et v. C la rk, 93 F. 3d 339, 34 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) . Und er thes e ci rcum sta nces, H odges cannotsho w thatthe dist ri ct cour t abused i ts disc re ti on i n fi nd i ng tha t he did notexer ci se the due di l i gence r equi re d to es ta b lish eq u ita b le t ollin g. See M yles , 416 F.3d at 55 2; D elga do -B run et, 93 F. 3d at 343. This l eave s o nl y the poss ibi l i ty, r ej ecte d by the di str i ct c ourt, thatH odge’ s a m ended c om p lain t re lat ed ba c k t o t h e filin g d at e o f th e o rig in al c om p lain t. See F ED . R. C IV . P. 15 (c ). B u t H od ge d id n ot m ist ak en ly su e t h e w ro n g p ar ty . Se e, e . g. , Ki ng, 201 F.3d at 91 4. N or d id he al l ege thatthe pu tat i ve new part i es w er e o n noti ce o fthe or i gi nal sui t, as r equi re d by Rule 15( c) . As w e hav e hel d, Rule 15( c) does notapplywh er e the defendant f ai l s t o id en tify th e p ro p er p ar ty . See O ’B rien v . Ind. D ep’t o f C o rr. ex rel. Turn er, 49 5 F . 3d 505, 50 7- 08 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); M yles , 416 F.3d at 55 2-5 3; D elga do -B run et, 93 F. 3d at 343- 44. Rel ate dly,N o. 08
- 3161 Page 3

H o dge ’ s at te m pt to c i r cumve ntthe s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns b y i nv o k i ngthe j o i nde r pr o vi si o ns of Fe d er al R u le of C ivil P ro c ed u re 19 als o fa ils. Se eAndre ws v. La ke s horeRe hab . Hos p. , 14 0 F.3d 140 5, 1408 ( 11th Cir. 1998). AFFI RM ED .