Third Circuit Court of Appeals (PA, NJ, DE, USVI)
Moore v. Walton
3d Circuit Court of Appeals, 3/21/24
No. 18-1868, 2024 WL 1203885
Judge Scirica
Topics: Relation Back
Quick Take: This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment prisoner case, but the facts are unimportant, and so is the cause of action, really. The case is about whether the “relation back” doctrine and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)'s reference to “the period provided by Rule 4(m)” includes any “good cause” extensions granted under that rule.
Full Take: This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment prisoner case, but the facts are unimportant, and so is the cause of action, really. The case is about whether the “relation back” doctrine and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)'s reference to “the period provided by Rule 4(m)” includes any “good cause” extensions granted under that rule.
After the toilet in plaintiff Troy Moore, Sr.'s prison cell exploded, covering him and the entire cell in human sewage, defendant Correctional Officer Saajida Walton refused to let Moore out of his cell to clean up for over eight hours. Initially proceeding pro se, Moore sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing Walton violated his Eighth Amendment rights. However, through no fault of his own, Moore's original complaint misspelled Walton's name as “Walden,” and despite the District Court finding “good cause for the delay in service in this case,” Moore was unable to correct the error until well after the statute of limitations on his claim expired.
Walton moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, and the district court held that the amended complaint did not relate back to his original timely complaint under Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
This was error. The district court should have looked to the period for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) in assessing notice, as required by Rule 15(c)(1)(C). Rule 15(c)(1)(C)'s reference to “the period provided by Rule 4(m)” includes any extensions for service granted under that rule for good cause, so it vacated the district court’s order.
The relation-back doctrine under Rule 15(c) allows a court to treat a later-filed amended pleading as if it had been filed at the time of the initial pleading. It thus ameliorates the running of the statute of limitations. Rule 15(c)(1)(C) permits relation back when an amendment to a pleading “changes the party or the naming of the party against whom a claim is asserted.” To do so, three requirements must be satisfied: first, the claim against the newly added defendant must arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading; second, the newly named party must have received such notice of the action that it will not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; third, the newly named party must have or should have known that “but for a mistake” made by the plaintiff concerning the newly named party's identity, “the action would have been brought against” the newly named party in the first place. The second and third requirements must be satisfied within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint.
The first and third requirements were undisputed. The second condition has two components each of which must be satisfied: notice and the absence of prejudice.
To determine whether Walton “received such notice of the action,” Rule 15(c)(1)(C) directs us to “the period provided by Rule 4(m).” Rule 4(m), in turn, states that if a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.
The District Court extended the deadline to serve Walton under Rule 4(m)'s “good cause” extension provision, and such an extension is included in the notice period set by Rule 15(c)(1)(C).
The court VACATED the order granting summary judgment and REMANDED to address (1) whether Walton received notice of the action by the date of the good cause extension and (2) whether Moore can demonstrate the absence of prejudice—the final element necessary to satisfy the relation back inquiry. If so, the remand instructs the court to reach the merits of the claim.