Court Opinion

ID: 9481294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:13:52.624702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:12.418724
License: Public Domain

COFFEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The majority attempts to bail out a plaintiff and his lawyer who carelessly filed pleadings suing the defendant in his official capacity rather than in his individual capacity. Now on appeal, the majority, plowing an unfurrowed field of legal theory without a scintilla of support in case law, reverses the district court’s conclusion that the amendment of the pleadings from one of an official capacity suit to one of an individual capacity suit cannot relate back to the date of filing the initial complaint, since the amendment came more than two years after the statute of limitations expired. Hill’s attorney had ample time to correct his pleading error prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Hill filed his *1379original complaint pro se in December 1984 and failed to properly designate the defendant’s capacity. Thereafter, the plaintiff with counsel filed two amended complaints specifically designating Shelander as a defendant in his official capacity in August 1986 and August 1987 and finally moved to amend his complaint to name Shelander in an individual capacity in September 1989. The majority’s allowing Hill’s third amended complaint to relate back gives Hill a fourth bite at the apple.
The majority somehow holds that even though “plaintiff pro se sued Shelander without designating official or individual capacity, it was clear from the allegations concerning the physical injuries inflicted on Hill by Shelander that Hill intended to sue him as an individual.” Majority Opinion at 1375. The majority’s position is erroneous as a matter of law. The district judge, and the magistrate before him, both held that Hill’s initial complaint was against Shelan-der in his official capacity under Kolar v. County of Sangamon, 756 F.2d 564 (7th Cir.1985).1 The Kolar Court noted that while the complaint failed to designate the capacity in which the defendant was sued and the case name failed to mention the defendant’s job title, the body of the complaint referred to the defendant’s title and alleged conduct that “relates solely to the Sheriff’s authority or duty to appoint and promote employees.” Id. at 568. Under the majority’s theory that “Hill’s complaint when ‘read in its entirety’ plainly shows that an individual capacity suit was intended,” Majority Opinion at 1374, the content of Kolar’s complaint would have been adequate to make the suit one against the Sheriff in his official capacity. Nonetheless, the Court went on to say that
“this Court ... [has] characterized as ‘official capacity’ suits those Section 1983 actions that fail to designate expressly the nature of the suit through utilization of the terms ‘official capacity’ or ‘individual capacity,’ but which list in the case name of the complaint the official’s job title....
******
“In order to avoid further confusion on this issue in the future, where a complaint alleges that the conduct of a public official acting under color of state law gives rise to liability under Section 1983, we will ordinarily assume that he has been sued in his official capacity and only in that capacity ... If a plaintiff intends to sue public officials in their individual capacities or in both their official and individual capacities, he should expressly state so in the complaint.”
Kolar, 756 F.2d at 568-69 (emphasis added) (footnote and citations omitted). It is evident that the Court declined to rely on reading the complaint “in its entirety” for its holding. The opinion demonstrates a distinct intention to establish a clear method of determining whether a complaint is brought against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. Hence, I find it surprising that the majority would argue that “Kolar stands for the proposition that an official capacity suit will be presumed when the indicia of an official policy or custom are present in the complaint.” Majority Opinion at 1373 (emphasis added).
In the instant case, Hill brought his initial complaint against Shelander under the name Steven Hill v. Sgt. Shelander. Thus, Hill's initial complaint against She-lander is deemed a suit against the defendant in his official capacity under Kolar, since the case name lists Shelander’s job title and fails to designate the complaint as being against him in his individual capacity. Hill neglected to file a properly amended complaint against the defendant Shelander in his individual capacity until six years after the injury. While this Court may sympathize with Hill, such negligence fails to justify rewriting the law to enable a careless attorney and his client to undo six years of negligent pleading.
Kolar likewise undermines the majority’s conclusion that the request for punitive damages makes the suit one against She-lander in his individual capacity because *1380“punitive damages [may] be recovered against a government actor only in an individual capacity suit.” Majority Opinion at 1374. The question in Kolar was whether the County was liable for the damages awarded to Kolar, which included punitive damages. The County argued that the award of punitive damages implied that the complaint must have been against the Sheriff in his individual capacity, since “an official capacity suit brought versus a defendant whose conduct would support a punitive award is doomed to failure.” The Court’s response was that
“[ajssuming, arguendo, the correctness of the County’s argument, i.e., that the award of punitive damages is wholly inconsistent with an official capacity suit, the truth of the defendant’s •proposition would not mean that plaintiffs suit against [the Sheriff] was not in fact brought versus the Sheriff in his official capacity nor that the County did not understand the action to be brought against him in such a capacity.”
Kolar, 756 F.2d at 569 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). A similar holding would be apropos here. The fact that Hill brought a complaint that was doomed to failure is inadequate to transform it from an official capacity action into an individual capacity suit. Thus, as a matter of law, Shelander was without notice that this suit was against him in his individual capacity until more than two years after the statute of limitations had run.
The majority attempts to overcome Ko-lar ’s clear holding that a suit will be presumed to be against the defendant in his official capacity unless the complaint expressly designates an individual capacity suit through reliance on Akins v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, 840 F.2d 1371 (7th Cir.1988), vacated 488 U.S. 920, 109 S.Ct. 299, 102 L.Ed.2d 319, on remand 867 F.2d 972 (7th Cir.1988) (opinion reinstated as to the named plaintiff). See Majority Opinion at 1373. In Akins, as is clear from the portion the majority quotes, the issue was “whether the plaintiffs abandoned their claim for injunctive relief against the defendants in their official capacities,” Akins, 840 F.2d at 1377 (emphasis added), by stating in a pleading that they were “suing the defendant state officials in their individual capacities and not in their official capacities.” Id. The Court found that since the plaintiffs continued to press their claims for injunctive relief, the district court erred in holding that they abandoned the claim. Significantly, the issue of whether a party has abandoned a claim fails to raise the crucial issue at stake here of notice to a defendant that he is being sued personally. Thus Akins provides no support for allowing an amendment nearly two and one half years after the statute of limitations to relate back to the time of filing the initial complaint.
The amendment of a pleading from one of an official capacity suit to an individual capacity proceeding, in effect, converts the lawsuit from one against the government to one against Shelander, the individual. Quoting the Supreme Court's explication of the distinction between personal capacity and official capacity suits in Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 3105, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985), the majority observes:
“As characterized by the Supreme Court, ‘[pjersonal-capacity suits seek to impose personal liability upon a government official for actions he takes under color of state law.
* * * * *
Official-capacity suits, in contrast, “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” ’ ”
Majority Opinion at 1372-1373 (citations omitted). As the Supreme Court went on to explain in Graham:
“As long as the government entity receives notice and an opportunity to respond, an official-capacity suit is, in all respects other than name, to be treated as a suit against the entity. It is not a suit against the official personally, for the real party in interest is the entity. Thus, while an award of damages against an official in his personal capacity can be executed only upon the offi*1381cial’s personal assets, a plaintiff seeking to recover on a damages judgment in an official-capacity suit must look to the government entity itself.”
“On the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right. More is required in an official capacity action, however, for a governmental entity is liable under § 1983 only when the entity itself is a “ ‘moving force’ ” behind the deprivation; thus, in an official-capacity suit the entity’s ‘policy or custom’ must have played a part in the violation of federal law. When it comes to defenses to liability, an official in a personal-capacity action may, depending on his position, be able to assert personal immunity defenses, such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. In an official capacity action, these defenses are unavailable. The only immunities that can be claimed in an official-capacity action are forms of sovereign immunity that the entity, qua entity, may possess, such as the Eleventh Amendment.”
Graham, 473 U.S. at 166-67, 105 S.Ct. at 3105-06 (citations and footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original).
Under a proper Rule 15(c) analysis, Hill’s amendment of his complaint to bring suit against Shelander in his individual capacity does not relate back to the time of filing the original complaint. Rule 15(c) provides in pertinent part:
“Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment, that party (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party.”
(Emphasis added). Hill has failed and is unable to satisfy the requirements for the amended complaint to “relate back,” for his amendment does not correct a mistake in ' identity. Since Shelander was without effective notice that the complaint was against him in his individual capacity, he would be prejudiced as a result of the amendment. As the majority recognizes: “Hill attempted to amend his complaint to change the suit to an individual capacity suit nine months after the statute of limitations ran. Unless Hill’s claim relates back to the date of the original complaint within the meaning of Rule 15(c), it is time-barred.” Majority Opinion at 1374-1375.2 In Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 29, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2384, 91 L.Ed.2d 18 (1986), the Supreme Court determined that a plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for amendment under Rule 15(c), in the following language:
“Relation back is dependent upon four factors, all of which must be satisfied: (1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.”
Applying the third and fourth prong of the four-prong test it is essential that “within the prescribed limitations period” the substituted “party must or should have *1382known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it.” Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 29, 106 S.Ct. at 2384 (emphasis added). Yet the majority’s decision casts aside the clear and unambiguous language and expands the scope of Rule 15(c) beyond its specific limitation to only those cases of mistaken identity. The majority does concede that the very intent of Rule 15(c) is to address the specific problem of mistaken identity: “[T]he Supreme Court’s reading of Rule 15(c), along with numerous lower court decisions, recognizes that legitimate legal claims may not be squelched when a party mistakenly identifies a party to be sued within the meaning of Rule 15(c).” Majority Opinion at 1375. Obviously, the majority has an unsurmountable obstacle in attempting to satisfy the mistake in identity requirement because any mistake Hill made concerning Shelander’s capacity was not a “mistake concerning the identity of the proper party.” As the trial court noted: “I think what we have here is a mistake, if there is a mistake, as to the operation of law to the facts in this case in terms of recovery....” Thus, the trial judge properly recognized that the plaintiff’s mistake concerned a matter of law— the capacity in which he sued Shelander— rather than a misapprehension of Shelan-der’s identity. Hill had no problem from the inception of this suit some six years ago in identifying the proper defendant; his problem was that six years after the event he discovered that he was suing the defendant in a legal capacity where he was unlikely to recover. Hill’s remedy at this juncture, if there be one, is a civil action against his attorney. His attempt to bring a suit against Shelander in his individual capacity not one day, not two weeks, but almost two and one-half years after the expiration of the statute of limitations is misconceived.
The majority relies upon a gre-Schiavone case, Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir.1980) as “specifically identifying] a change in capacity as constituting one type of case where the amended complaint related back to the date of the original complaint.” Majority Opinion at 1376. But the change in capacity in Wood was “the capacity in which the plaintiff sues_” Wood, 618 F.2d at 1229 (emphasis added). Change in the capacity in which the plaintiff sues does not raise a question concerning the party to be sued, which is the clear intent of Rule 15(c), and it bears no relationship whatsoever to a mistake in the identity of the defendant. Thus, this misapplication of case law cannot support a conclusion that the plaintiff satisfied the third prong of Schiavone, that “but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against" the amended party. Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 29, 106 S.Ct. at 2384. When Rule 15(c) speaks of a mistake in identity, that is exactly what it intends, and it clearly does not impact on the capacity in which the party is sued.
In an attempt to establish a new legal theory without a scintilla of legal support, the majority argues that “the underlying spirit and purpose of the relation-back doctrine” should permit amendments to relate back even when the Rule 15(c)’s requirement of a mistake of identity is not met. I would note that the Supreme Court precisely rejected such an argument in Schiavone. There the petitioners argued that “the Rules of Civil Procedure should be applied and construed to yield just determinations, that is, determinations on the merits.... ” Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 26, 106 S.Ct. at 2382. The Supreme Court’s ultimate response to that contention is dispositive here:

“We do not have before us a choice between a ‘liberal’ approach toward Rule 15(c), on the one hand, and a ‘technical’ interpretation of the Rule, on the other hand. The choice, instead, is between recognizing or ignoring what the Rule provides in plain language. We accept the Rule as meaning what it says.”

Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 30, 106 S.Ct. at 2384 (emphasis added). Our 1976 decision in Staren v. American National Bank and Trust Co., 529 F.2d 1257 (7th Cir.1976), which the majority cites for the proposition “that amendment pursuant to Rule 15(c) *1383should be freely allowed,” is clearly limited by the Supreme Court’s warning ten years later in Schiavone that we cannot “ignor[e] what the Rule provides in plain language.” Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 30, 106 S.Ct. at 2384. Schiavone’s treatment of the plain language of Rule 15(c) binds an intermediate appellate Court to the clear and unfettered terms of Rule 15(c). Because Rule 15(c) provides in plain language that relation-back is permissible only in circumstances where there exists a mistake in identity, it is inapplicable in this case.
The majority cites two pre-Schiavone Fifth Circuit cases that ignore the limitation of Rule 15(c) to cases of mistaken identity in support of its erroneous position that Rule 15(c) can encompass an amendment changing a defendant’s capacity that does not arise from misidentification. The first of these cases, Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.1980) is clearly distinguishable. Kirk involved an original complaint that improperly “named the Parish of Jefferson and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office as defendants and which was thereafter amended to name the Sheriff “both individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff_” Kirk, 629 F.2d at 405. Thus, there was a mistake concerning identification of the defendant as the original complaint was erroneously filed against the Sheriff’s Office and the amended complaint substituted the Sheriff in his individual and official capacities. See Kirk, 629 F.2d at 408-09 (“The appellee was the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish at all relevant times,” and “in the same manner in which he had notice of the action against the sheriff’s office, the appellee knew or should have known that he was the party who should have been sued”).
Even if Kirk were read to permit an amendment changing capacity to relate back absent a mistake in identity, there are material factual distinctions between Kirk and the instant case. The language in Kirk allows an amendment designating a government official as a defendant in his individual capacity to relate back to the time of filing the complaint when the amendment names as the defendant the Sheriff, who is presumably involved in the governmental policy issues at stake in the official capacity action. We can assume that a Sheriff, the senior commanding officer of the law enforcement agency, will be more knowledgeable concerning an ongoing official capacity action filed against the office he directs than would a lower echelon employee who possesses neither policy-making nor supervisory responsibilities. As contrasted with Kirk, the majority permits relation back of an individual capacity action against a prison guard who would normally have no reason to monitor an official capacity lawsuit brought against the governmental agency. Because Kirk involved a mistake in identity of the defendant and concerned the head of the governmental agency rather than a lower echelon employee, it does not support the majority’s attempt to extend Rule 15(c) to cases that do not involve mistakes in identity.3
The second Fifth Circuit case the majority relies upon, Kerney v. Ft. Griffin Fandangle Association, Inc., 624 F.2d 717, 721-22 (5th Cir.1980) is also clearly distinguishable. In Kerney, the plaintiff amended his complaint to name defendants in the capacity of class representatives as well as individually after the applicable statute of limitations had ran. The court allowed the amendment to relate back to the time of the filing of the complaint, properly holding *1384Kerney, 624 F.2d at 721 (emphasis added). The court noted that “no named defendant should find their defense of the class to be different from their defense as individuals.” Id. In sharp contrast to Kerney, which did not affect the ultimate liability of the defendants, amendment of the complaint here alters “the ultimate liability sought to be imposed” because an award of damages in an individual capacity action comes from the named defendant rather than the governmental entity.
*1383“that an amendment that merely changes the status of individual defendants to class representatives without changing the ultimate liability sought to be imposed relates back to the date of the original complaint if the named parties will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense as class representatives because of the delay between the original and amended pleadings.”
*1384The distinctions between Kerney and the instant case clearly demonstrate that not only is Hill unable to establish that the first amended complaint involved a mistake concerning identity under the third prong of the Schiavone four-prong test for relation back under Rule 15(c), neither can Hill satisfy the second prong of Schiavone that “the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense.” Schiavone, 477 U.S. at 29, 106 S.Ct. at 2384. Shelander suffers prejudice from this amendment in a number of different manners. An official capacity suit requires proof that the defendant acted in the capacity of a policymaker or pursuant to a governmental policy while an individual capacity suit does not. The defendant is prejudiced as a result of the alteration in the requirements for the plaintiff to establish recovery, for he finds himself forced to dispute different elements of proof. The defendant is further prejudiced- in being required to rely upon different defenses, as a defendant is permitted to raise only a qualified immunity defense in an individual capacity suit whereas he may raise a sovereign immunity defense in an official capacity suit. Completely divergent proof and legal arguments are required under each of the defenses. Because an amendment in a defendant’s capacity in a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alters the elements of recovery and defense in the manner described above, it will require major changes in pleading, discovery, trial preparation and selection and location of witnesses to testify at trial. Moreover, at this late date more than six years after the fact, witnesses, due to the lapse of time, may very well have forgotten crucial facts relating to She-lander’s new defense now in an individual capacity, and having to pursue evidence from witnesses who may have moved across the country would require significant additional legal expenses as well as significant delays in the resolution of the lawsuit. Since the complaint was brought against Shelander in his official capacity from the very beginning, and never changed until September of 1989, Shelan-der was without notice that he needed to make these preparations. Thus, he would suffer additional prejudice were this amended complaint allowed to relate back to the filing of the lawsuit. The prejudice delineated above is further aggravated in that when a claim against a defendant is made in his individual capacity, the defendant’s personal assets become exposed to judgment. The conclusion is inescapable that Hill had more than ample time to amend his complaint to designate this action properly as an individual capacity suit within the statute of limitations, and there is no excuse for the prejudice Shelander now suffers as a result of the majority’s holding that this untimely amendment relates back.
Relation back of the amendment suing Shelander in his individual capacity after the statute of limitations has run cannot be permitted because Hill has failed to establish that his erroneous designation of She-lander’s capacity was a “mistake concerning identity” under any stretch of the imagination, because permitting relation back completely disregards the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 15(c) and because relation back would prejudice Shelan-der. Once a suit is brought against a defendant in his official capacity, he is entitled to rely on the fact that he has no personal liability at stake. Allowing Hill's amendment to relate back at this late date is not only unfair to Shelander, it subverts the fundamental principle of statutes of limitation. Thus, based upon the interests of justice and fair play to all parties in the litigation, I would affirm the ruling of the trial court and hold that the plaintiff’s amendment changing the defendant’s ca*1385pacity from official to personal does not relate back to the time of filing under Rule 15(c).

. I note that the author of the majority opinion and the author of Kolar are the same individual.

. The applicable statute of limitations time period expired April 17, 1987, see Anton v. Lehpamer, 787 F.2d 1141 (7th Cir.1986), and the amended complaint was filed over two years later on September 25, 1989. The majority's assumption that the statute of limitations extended until December 14, 1988, fails to aid its holding.

. We also note that the amendment in Kirk was filed slightly more than three months (97 days) after the expiration of a one year limitations period and was filed within an arguably applicable two year statute of limitations. See Kirk, 629 F.2d at 405, 406. This is in sharp contrast to the amendment in this case, which was filed over two years after the expiration of the applicable limitations period and six years after the event.