8 F.4th 493
7th Cir.2021Background
- On October 25, 2016, Justin Herrera (pretrial detainee) was assaulted in a Cook County Jail holding cell; he alleged officers ignored his calls for help and delayed medical care.
- Herrera filed a pro se § 1983 complaint within Illinois’ two-year limitations period (October 9, 2018) but named the three offending officers as "John Doe" placeholders because he did not know their identities.
- After obtaining identifying information, Herrera amended his complaint twice—adding the officers’ real names more than a year after the limitations period expired.
- The officers moved to dismiss as time-barred; the district court held the amendments related back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C)(ii), treating the John Doe pleading as a “mistake” under Krupski, and denied dismissal.
- The officers obtained interlocutory review; the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that knowingly suing a John Doe is not a “mistake” for Rule 15(c) relation-back purposes and remanded for consideration of equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether naming John Doe defendants constitutes a “mistake” under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) such that later amendments relate back | Herrera: Krupski’s definition of "mistake" encompasses cases where inadequate knowledge led to John Doe pleadings, so the amendments relate back | Officers: Naming John Does is a deliberate choice based on lack of knowledge, not a "mistake"; relation back therefore fails and claims are time-barred | Court: Reversed—naming John Doe is not a "mistake" under Rule 15(c); relation back unavailable |
| Whether equitable tolling can save Herrera’s untimely claims | Herrera: Even if Rule 15(c) fails, equitable tolling may apply because he pursued identifying information and later obtained counsel | Officers: Equitable tolling should not apply because Herrera failed to show reasonable diligence/extraordinary circumstances | Court: Left equitable tolling to the district court on remand (factual inquiry) |
Key Cases Cited
- Krupski v. Costa Crociere S.p.A., 560 U.S. 538 (2010) (Supreme Court definition of “mistake” and relation-back standard focusing on what the added defendant knew or should have known)
- Hall v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 469 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2006) (Seventh Circuit rule: plaintiff’s ignorance of defendant’s identity—John Doe practice—does not satisfy Rule 15(c) “mistake”)
- Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208 (2d Cir. 2019) (post-Krupski holding that replacing a John Doe is correcting lack of knowledge, not a Rule 15(c) mistake)
- Winzer v. Kaufman Cnty., 916 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 2019) (failing to identify individual defendants cannot be characterized as a Rule 15(c) mistake)
- Heglund v. Aitkin Cnty., 871 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2017) (naming John Doe defendants is not a “mistake” for relation-back under Rule 15(c) )