IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DAVID MEYERS, :

: Case No. 4:CV-04-1123

Plaintiff, :

: (Judge McClure) 

v. :

:

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON, :

GERALD BRITTON, in his official :

capacity as Warden of Schuylkill :

County Prison, :

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY PRISON :

BOARD, :

GERALD BRITTON, individually, :

SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, and :

JOHN AND/OR JANE DOE, :

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

April 25, 2006

BACKGROUND:

On May 21, 2004, Plaintiff David Meyers, through his attorneys, instituted

this Section 1983 civil rights action against numerous defendants connected with

the Schuylkill County Prison. On March 7, 2006, we granted in part and denied in

part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Rec. Doc. No. 28.) The factual

background of this case is set forth in that Memorandum. Now before the court is

Plaintiff’s Motion To Amend His Complaint To Name Jane And/Or John Doe. 

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 9
2

(Rec. Doc. No. 29.) Because plaintiff’s failure to timely amend the complaint to

identify the Doe Defendants is the result of undue delay, we will deny the motion.

DISCUSSION:

A. The Local Rules

We note at the outset the failure of both parties to comply with the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,

which may be found at http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/docs/LR12012005.pdf. 

Neither party’s pleadings comply with Local Rule 5.1(c), and plaintiff’s brief

exceeds the fifteen page limit imposed by 7.8(b)(1). These lapses are inexplicable,

especially in light of this court’s order dated October 12, 2005, specifically

admonishing the parties to comply with these precise rules. (Rec. Doc. No. 23.) 

In our October 12th order, we warned counsel that any subsequent document filed

by the parties not in compliance with the Local Rules would be returned. 

Because we see no purpose in punishing the parties for their attorneys’

failures, we will not delay our disposition of this motion by returning the pleadings. 

We therefore decide the motion on its merits. Although counsel’s failure to comply

with both the Local Rules and an Order of this court is disappointing, such failure

did not affect our analysis of the merits.

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 9
3

B. The Doe Defendants

Plaintiff filed suit against Doe defendants identified only as “those

corrections officers and other prison officials whose responsibility was to provide

medical care and treatment to the inmates.” (Am. Compl., Rec. Doc. No. 4, at 2.) 

Nearly two years into the litigation, plaintiff had not specifically identified the Doe

defendants despite the close of discovery. Defendants did not move in their

motion for summary judgment for the dismissal of the unnamed Doe defendants,

but in their reply to plaintiff’s opposition, stated: “The John and/or Jane Doe

defendants identified in the caption have never been identified, mandating their

dismissal or judgment in their favor.” (Rec. Doc. No. 24, at 11.) Defendants did

not elaborate on this argument. To give plaintiff a full opportunity to address the

matter, we directed plaintiff to file a motion to amend the complaint to substitute

names for the Doe defendants.

On March 21, 2006, plaintiff filed his motion to amend the complaint and

supporting brief. (Rec. Doc. No. 29.) Plaintiff seeks to substitute Corrections

Officers Harner and Ferror, Lieutenant Lamar Gehris, Warden Gene Berdanier

(Deputy Warden during Meyers’ incarceration), and Nurse Christine Banonis for

the Doe defendants. We will refer to these individuals collectively as “Doe

defendants” or “proposed defendants.”

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 9
4

After a twelve-page reiteration of the facts, plaintiff garnered two main

arguments in his favor. First, plaintiff states that the “Jane Doe’s [sic] and John

Doe’s [sic] were not named by the Plaintiff because he could not possibly know

there [sic] identity without first performing discover [sic].” (Id. at 13-14.) Second,

plaintiff argues that the proposed defendants had notice of the suit, either through

the shared attorney method, by having a sufficient identity of interest, or from

reading a news story published in the local newspaper. (Id. at 15.) In his

argument, plaintiff repeatedly relies on the decision of United States Magistrate

Judge Joel Rosen in Lassoff v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 05-2261, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 5350 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2006), which denied that plaintiff’s motion to amend. 

In their opposition, proposed defendants argue that we should deny

plaintiff’s motion because his failure to amend is “a result of his undue delay, bad

faith and dilatory motive.” (Rec. Doc. No. 30, at 3.) Proposed defendants also

argue that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his proposed second amended

complaint is meritorious, and that plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Plaintiff did not file a reply brief.

We will address plaintiff’s arguments in reverse order. First, we discuss

plaintiff’s argument that proposed defendants had notice of the action. Secondly,

we discuss plaintiff’s attempt to explain his failure to identify the Doe defendants in

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 9
5

a timely manner.

C. Rule 15(c) and Relation Back

Meyers sustained his injury in the summer months of 2002, and his wrist was

casted on July 25, 2002. Meyers filed his complaint on May 21, 2004. “Actions

brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are governed by the personal injury statute of

limitations of the state in which the cause of action accrued.” O’Connor v. City of

Newark, 440 F.3d 125, 126 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Cito v. Bridgewater Twp. Police

Dep’t, 892 F.2d 23, 25 (3d Cir. 1989)). In Pennsylvania, “[a]n action to recover

damages for injuries to the person or for the death of an individual caused by the

wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violence or negligence of another” “must be

commenced within two years.” 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524(2). 

Meyers filed his motion to amend the complaint to name the Doe defendants

on March 31, 2006, after the statute of limitations had run. Consequently, the twoyear statute of limitations will bar the addition of the Doe defendants unless the

proposed amended complaint “relates back” to the date of plaintiff’s original filing,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).

“Rule 15(c) can ameliorate the running of the statute of limitations on a claim

by making the amended claim relate back to the original, timely filed complaint.” 

Singletary v. Penn. Dept. Of Corrections, 266 F.3d 186, 193 (3d Cir. 2001) (citing

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 5 of 9
6

Nelson v. County of Allegheny, 60 F.3d 1010, 1015 (3d Cir. 1995)). Rule 15(c)(3)

would be the applicable rule here, and “courts interpret 15(c)(3) as imposing three

conditions, all of which must be met for a successful relation back of an amended

complaint that seeks to substitute newly named defendants.” Id. at 194. 

Plaintiff’s arguments concerning the proposed defendants’ notice of the

institution of the action go to the second condition imposed by 15(c)(3): “that the

newly named party must have ‘received such notice of the institution of the action

[within the 120 day period] that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a

defense on the merits.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(A)). Plaintiff argues

that the proposed defendants had notice of the suit either through the shared

attorney method, by having a sufficient identity of interest, or from reading a news

story published in the local newspaper. 

However, we need not decide whether the proposed defendants had

sufficient notice of the suit, or whether the proposed amended complaint relates

back to plaintiff’s original filing on May 21, 2004. As we discuss below, plaintiff

has unduly and unreasonably delayed in identifying the Doe defendants and moving

to amend the complaint. We therefore conclude that the interests of justice do not

require that plaintiff’s motion be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (leave to

amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires”). 

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 6 of 9
7

C. Rule 15 and Undue Delay

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave to amend “shall be

freely given when justice so requires.” The Supreme Court has identified several

factors to be considered when applying Rule 15(a):

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason–such

as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of

the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,

futility of amendment, etc.–the leave sought should, as

the rules require, be “freely given.”

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (emphasis added). We focus on

plaintiff’s undue delay in amending his complaint.

As proposed defendants point out, “Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend was filed

almost four years after his alleged injury at the Schuylkill County Prison, over a year

after the initial discovery deadline, approximately six months subsequent to the final

discovery deadline and after this Court issued its Order on the named Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Proposed Defs.’ Br. in Opp., Rec. Doc. No.

30, at 3-4.) Plaintiff attempts to excuse his failure to identify the Doe defendants by

stating that “[t]he Jane Doe’s [sic] and John Doe’s [sic] were not named by the

Plaintiff because he could not possibly know there [sic] identity without first

performing discover [sic].” (Rec. Doc. No. 29, at 13-14.) 

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 7 of 9
8

As the Third Circuit noted in Singletary, “[i]t is certainly not uncommon for

victims of civil rights violations (e.g., an assault by police officers or prison guards)

to be unaware of the identity of the person or persons who violated those rights.” 

266 F.3d at 201 n.5. While Meyers “was not aware of the names of all corrections

officers, nurses and other officers” during his incarceration at the Schuylkill County

Prison, he learned of their identities long before moving to add them as defendants. 

At the very latest, plaintiff knew the names of all five proposed defendants at

the time of his deposition on January 17, 2005. At his deposition, plaintiff

discussed by name Deputy Warden Gene Berdanier (see, e.g., Rec. Doc. No. 21-2,

at 34), Lieutenant Lamar Gehres (see, e.g., id. at 53), Corrections Officer Jeffrey

Harner (see, e.g., id. at 39), Corrections Officer Ferron (see, e.g., id. at 43), and

Nurse Tina Banonis (see, e.g., id. at 41). 

Plaintiff offers no credible excuse for this delay. We share the Third

Circuit’s concern, articulated in Singletary, that fairness be afforded civil rights

plaintiffs who are unaware of potential defendants’ identities. This is not a case,

however, where plaintiff has only now been able to learn the names of the Doe

defendants. Plaintiff knew the identities of these proposed defendants at least

fifteen months ago, before the close of discovery. As proposed defendants argue,

“Plaintiff’s failure to name Proposed Defendants as parties to the action and to

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 8 of 9
9

specify their alleged wrong-doing for over a year and a half has robbed Proposed

Defendants of the opportunity to actively participate in their defense and to actively

participate in the discovery process.” (Rec. Doc. No. 30, at 6.)

“While the passage of time alone does not support the denial of leave to

amend, undue delay in seeking such leave will.” Wine v. EMSA Ltd. P’ship, 167

F.R.D. 34, 39-40 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (Robreno, J.); see also Lorenz v. CSX Corp., 1

F.3d 1406, 1414 (3d Cir. 1993) (where plaintiff was aware of the facts but delayed

for three years before filing a motion to amend, delay was unreasonable). 

Discovery is over; motions for summary judgment have been briefed and decided;

trial is on the horizon. Plaintiff’s delay is undue, and unreasonable. Because the

interests of justice do not require that plaintiff’s motion be granted, we will deny the

motion to amend.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff David Meyers’s Motion To Amend His Complaint to Name

Jane And/Or John Doe is denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 29.)

 s/ James F. McClure, Jr. 

James F. McClure, Jr.

United States District Judge 

Case 4:04-cv-01123-JFM Document 32 Filed 04/25/06 Page 9 of 9