IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

JASON B. BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-288

)

LARRY RAY NEWTON, )

and TONY LENNARTZ, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on the complaint (DE 1) and

the motion for relation-back (DE 4) filed by Jason B. Brown, a pro

se prisoner, on October 1, 2013. For the reasons set forth below,

the motion for relation-back (DE 4) is DENIED and this case is

DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

Jason B. Brown, a pro se prisoner, originally attempted to

bring these claims by amending his complaint in Brown v. Simmons,

1:10-CV-304 (N.D. Ind. filed August 31, 2010). The motion to amend

was denied because these claims are unrelated to the claims in that

case. As a result, he filed this case. Though he did not attach any

of the supporting documents that he included with his motion to

amend, because they are relevant to these claims, the court has

examined them. See Brown v. Simmons, 1:10-CV-304 (N.D. Ind. filed

August 31, 2010), ECF No. 97. 

case 1:13-cv-00288-RL-RBC document 6 filed 10/04/13 page 1 of 5
Brown alleges that Tony Lennartz unlawfully arrested him on

June 13 or 14, 2008. He alleges that Larry Ray Newton unlawfully

detained him in the Jay County Jail after a state court judge

granted his motion to suppress on August 25, 2008. After the motion

to suppress was granted, the State of Indiana filed an appeal

pursuant to Indiana Code 35-38-4-2(5) which authorizes appeals by

the State “From an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if

the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further

prosecution.” Brown prevailed on appeal. State v. Brown, 900 N.E.2d

820 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied 919 N.E.2d 551 (Ind.

2009). The criminal charges were dismissed on September 28, 2009.

Brown v. Simmons, 1:10-CV-304 (N.D. Ind. filed August 31, 2010),

ECF No. 97 at 19. 

DISCUSSION

“A document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a

pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quotation marks and

citations omitted). However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the

court must review the merits of a prisoner complaint. This case

must be dismissed because it is untimely.

“Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations . . . is applicable

to all causes of action brought in Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

-2-

case 1:13-cv-00288-RL-RBC document 6 filed 10/04/13 page 2 of 5
Snodderly v. R.U.F.F. Drug Enforcement Task Force, 239 F.3d 892,

894 (7th Cir. 2001). “Fourth Amendment claims for false arrest or

unlawful searches accrue at the time of (or termination of) the

violation.” Dominguez v. Hendley, 545 F.3d 585, 589 (7th Cir.

2008). Therefore, his claim against Lennartz arose in June 2008

when the arrest occurred, and the deadline for filing it expired in

June 2010. 

Brown says that he was being detained in September 2008, but

he does not say when he was released. Because he makes no reference

to being detained on these charges after they were dismissed on

September 28, 2009, that is the latest date on which it can be

plausibly inferred that he is alleging that he was unlawfully

detained. Therefore, his claim against Newton arose (at the latest)

in September 2009, and the deadline for filing it expired (at the

latest) in September 2011. 

Along with the complaint, Brown filed a motion asking that

this case be permitted to relate back to his prior lawsuit, Brown

v. Simmons, 1:10-CV-304 (N.D. Ind. filed August 31, 2010), so that

it would be considered timely filed when he signed the complaint in

that case on August 30, 2010. Id., DE 1 at 1. Relation-back is

permitted only in limited circumstances. 

Brown is attempting to have new, unrelated claims against

previously unnamed defendants relate back to a prior pleading in a

different case. This does not work. Relation-back only applies when

-3-

case 1:13-cv-00288-RL-RBC document 6 filed 10/04/13 page 3 of 5
“[a]n amendment to a pleading relates back to the . . . the

original pleading . . ..” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).

Here, Brown is not amending his original pleading in his prior

case, he is filing a new lawsuit, therefore Rule 15 does not permit

relation-back. 

Brown’s motion to amend (signed on August 30, 2013, and filed

in the prior case) was denied because these claims are not related

to the ones he presented in that case. As such they could not be

added because “[u]nrelated claims against different defendants

belong in different suits . . ..” George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605,

607 (7th Cir. 2007). So too, because they are unrelated claims

against new defendants, they cannot relate back. See Rule 15(c)(1)

(“An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the

original pleading when . . . (B) the amendment asserts a claim or

defense that arose out of the conduct, transaction or occurrence

set out . . . in the original pleading . . ..”) (emphasis added).

Therefore the motion for relation-back must be denied. 

Thus, the complaint in this case does not relate-back to any

prior filing. It was not signed until September 17, 2013. DE 2 at

5. Therefore all of Brown’s claims are untimely. 

-4-

case 1:13-cv-00288-RL-RBC document 6 filed 10/04/13 page 4 of 5
CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for relation-back

(DE 4) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A. 

DATED: October 4, 2013 /s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge

United State District Court

-5-

case 1:13-cv-00288-RL-RBC document 6 filed 10/04/13 page 5 of 5