Court Opinion

ID: 2963624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:13:09.130623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:52.839716
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                        

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1541 

                                     NINA SUNDEL,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Steven L. Kessler and Geoffrey Q. Ralls on brief for appellant.
            _________________     _________________
            Sheldon  Whitehouse,   United  States  Attorney,  and  Michael  P.
            ___________________                                    ___________
        Iannotti, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ________

                                 ____________________

                                   October 5 , 1995
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.  We  affirm the order of the  district court
                 __________

            dismissing  the  claims  of  plaintiff/appellant  Nina Sundel

            essentially for the reasons given  by the magistrate judge in

            his report and recommendation, dated December 7, 1994.

                 We also  deny Sundel's  request that  she be  allowed to

            amend her complaint on appeal.  

                 First,  having elected not to  amend her complaint as of

            right  before the district  court, Sundel now  must show that

            her case fits into  the "long-odds exception" to the  general

            rule  that  failure to  seek amendment  below bars  relief on

            appeal. Dartmouth  Review v. Dartmouth College,  889 F.2d 13,
                    _________________    _________________

            23 (1st  Cir. 1989).   The  only special  circumstance facing

            Sundel below  was her pro se status.  However, "pro se status
                                  ___ __                    ___ __

            [does  not] absolve  [a  litigant] from  compliance with  the

            Federal Rules  of Procedure."   United States v.  Heller, 957
                                            _____________     ______

            F.2d  26, 31 (1st Cir. 1992) (quoting Feinstein v. Moses, 951
                                                  _________    _____

            F.2d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 1991)).  Therefore, once the magistrate

            judge  recommended that  Sundel's Bivens claims  be dismissed
                                              ______

            because  of  "failure  to make  specific  allegations against

            individual  defendants,"  Sundel  should  have  exercised her

            right to amend her pleadings,  see Dartmouth Review, 889 F.2d
                                           ___ ________________

            at  22 (plaintiff has right to amend pleading after motion to

            dismiss,  because  motion  to  dismiss is  not  a  responsive

            pleading within  the meaning of Rule 15), in order to add the

            necessary specific allegations.   Nor can Sundel contend that

                                         -2-

            she  was  unaware  of  this information  since  she  included

            specific allegations against individuals in her  objection to

            the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge. 

                 Second, allowing  Sundel to  amend  her complaint  would

            serve no purpose in  this case.  The only  potentially viable

            claims arising out of the facts alleged in Sundel's complaint

            are  the Bivens  claims  against individual  officers of  the
                     ______

            government.    Since  her  original complaint  was  dismissed

            without prejudice  to her filing  such claims, she  may still

            pursue any such actions via a properly filed new complaint.  

                 On the other  hand, if, as Sundel suggests,  the statute

            of limitations has already run on her Bivens claims, allowing
                                                  ______

            her to amend her original complaint would still not  overcome

            the  time  bar  unless  the amendment  related  back  to  her

            original  complaint, pursuant  to Fed.  R. Civ.  P. 15(c)(3).

            However, Rule  15(c) requires  that, within  120 days of  the

            filing of the original complaint, "the party to be brought in

            by  amendment  .  . .  [have]  received  such  notice of  the

            institution  of  the  action  that  the  party  will  not  be

            prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits."    In the

            instant  case,  the  record  indicates  that  the  individual

            government  agents  have   never  been  served  process   nor

            otherwise been provided notice of  the action.  Absent timely

            notice, Rule  15(c)'s relation back provisions  do not apply.

            Wilson v. United  States, 23  F.3d 559, 563  (1st Cir.  1994)
            ______    ______________

                                         -3-

            (quoting  Rule  15(c)).    Moreover,  Rule  15(c)  ordinarily

            applies only when "the proper defendant is already before the

            court  and the  effect is  merely to  correct the  name under

            which he is  sued.  But  a new defendant  cannot normally  be

            substituted  or  added  by  amendment after  the  statute  of

            limitations has run."  Id. (quoting Worthington v.  Wilson, 8
                                   __           ___________     ______

            F.3d 1253, 1256  (7th Cir. 1993)).   Consequently, since  the

            individual defendants were  never before the district  court,

            they  cannot be added if  the statute of  limitations has now

            run.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -4-