Opinion ID: 4520652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amendment of Complaint to Add Defendants

Text: Finally, Plaintiff appeals the order denying his motion to amend his complaint to add new defendants. 2 He sought to add as defendants Sergeant Deon and Mustang Police Officer Carpenter, claiming they failed to intervene in the actions of defendants Jones and Wright. In the proposed amended complaint, Plaintiff asserted that the date of injury was November 25, 2014. He filed his motion to add defendants on December 22, 2017, over three years after the date of injury. The district court denied leave to add these 2 Plaintiff does not challenge on appeal the district court’s denial of his proposed amendment to reinstate his claims against Officers Jones and Wright in their official capacities. 10 defendants because the applicable two-year statute of limitations had expired. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(3) (imposing a two-year limitations period for “an action for injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract”); see also Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1523 (10th Cir. 1988) (holding two-year statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims), abrogated in part on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009). Plaintiff asserts that he did not discover the facts underlying his claims against the proposed defendants until he received the special report containing the video and Defendants’ responses to his discovery requests. Accordingly, he contends that the limitations period did not begin to run until he learned of the proposed defendants’ violation of his rights. Plaintiff’s proposed new claims were § 1983 claims, so federal law governs when the action accrues. See Braxton v. Zavaras, 614 F.3d 1156, 1159 (10th Cir. 2010). “A civil rights action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action. Indeed, it is not necessary that a claimant know all of the evidence ultimately relied on for the cause of action to accrue.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the injury that is the basis for this action is Plaintiff’s November 25, 2014, arrest, which he knew of at the time of the arrest; thus, his claims accrued on that date. See Johnson v. Johnson Cty. Comm’n Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Claims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect, such as arrest, interrogation, or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually occur.”). 11 Plaintiff relies on Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B) to argue that his proposed new claims relate back to the date he filed his original complaint, thus making his new claims timely. For an amended complaint adding a new party to relate back, Rule 15(c)(1) requires the following: (1) the claim arose out of the same conduct or occurrence alleged in the original pleading, Rule 15(c)(1)(B); (2) the proposed new party “received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits,” id. 15(c)(1)(C)(i); (3) the proposed new party “knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity,” id. 15(c)(1)(C)(ii); (4) the second and third criteria were met within 90 days of the filing of the original complaint, see id. 15(c)(1)(C); and (5) the original complaint was filed within the applicable limitations period, see id. 15(c)(1)(A); see also Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517 (2d Cir. 2013) (setting out these requirements for an amended complaint to relate back); May v. Segovia, 929 F.3d 1223, 1231 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting stringent restrictions on relation back when adding a new defendant). He has failed to make the required showing. And he does not argue that he qualified for tolling of the statute of limitations under Oklahoma’s strict construction of exceptions to a statute of limitations. See Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Grant, 901 P.2d 807, 813 (Okla. 1995) (“Exceptions to statutes of limitation are strictly construed and are not enlarged on consideration of apparent hardship or inconvenience.”); see also Braxton, 614 F.3d at 1159 (equitable tolling is governed by state law). Therefore, we affirm the order denying leave to amend to add new defendants. 12