Rashoun Smith v. City of Akron, 476 F. App'x 67

Officers Ross and Miles wrestled Smith, tased him, sprayed him with chemical spray, and placed him in a cruiser during an August 27, 2007 arrest in Akron for a stolen vehicle.
Smith later filed state and then federal claims against the City of Akron, its police department, and officers, alleging federal constitutional and state tort violations.
The district court dismissed the Ross and Miles claims as time-barred after Smith amended to add them as defendants, and granted summary judgment on municipal §1983 liability and on Ohio tort immunity grounds.
Rule 15(c) analysis concluded amendments substituting new defendants do not relate back when there was no mistaken identity and the plaintiff waited to discover identities within two years.
The court held no Monell policy or custom supported municipal §1983 liability, and Ohio immunity barred the state tort claims against the city.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amendment naming Ross and Miles relates back under Rule 15(c).	Smith argued Ross and Miles knew of the suit and were the intended defendants.	Ross and Miles were added as new defendants, not substituted for a mistaken identity.	Relation back not permitted; no mistaken identity under Rule 15(c).
Whether Krupski affects the Rule 15(c) analysis.	Krupski requires allowing correction of misidentified defendants after filing.	Krupski does not salvage Smith’s situation because he did not know whom to sue within the period and amendments were not mere name substitutions.	Krupski does not apply to permit relation back here.
Whether the city supervisor liability under §1983 is established by a policy or custom.	The city had a custom of improper training/supervision evidenced by officer conduct and complaints.	Isolated officer shortcomings and complaints do not prove a city-wide policy or custom; no link to training policy.	Municipal §1983 claim fails as a matter of law.
Whether Ohio immunities shield the city from state tort claims.	Police perform governmental functions; immunity should not apply.	Ohio law immunizes municipalities for acts by employees in governmental functions.	City immune under Ohio Rev. Code §2744.02; state tort claims barred.

Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 1996) (amendment changing defendant not a mere substitution; mistaken identity required)
In re Kent Holland Die Casting & Plating, Inc., 928 F.2d 1448 (6th Cir. 1991) (relation back limits for amendments)
Moore v. Tennessee, 267 F. App’x 450 (6th Cir. 2008) (apparent disposition on related issues in the context of Rule 15)
Wilson v. U.S. Gov’t, 23 F.3d 559 (1st Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional and pleading principles cited in related-rule discussions)
Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 1995) (mistaken identity and amendment principles)
Locklear v. Bergman & Beving AB, 457 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2006) (amendment and relation back considerations)
Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 1998) (defendant identity and amendments under Rule 15)
Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, 138 F.3d 701 (7th Cir. 1998) (relation back and John Doe issues)
Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001) (constitutional claims and municipal liability groundwork)
Garrett v. Fleming, 362 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 2004) (police misconduct and related municipal liability considerations)
Wayne v. Jarvis, 197 F.3d 1098 (11th Cir. 1999) (supervisory liability and municipal policy considerations)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for failure to train)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. __ (2011) (prior incidents and pattern evidence not required for different violations)