Michael A. King v. One Unknown Federal Correctional Officer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding an amendment would be futile because plaintiff had not satisfied relation back requirements and therefore amendment would be barred by statute of limitations
• holding an amendment would be futile because plaintiff had not satisfied relation back requirements and therefore amendment would be barred by statute of limitations
• holding “an amended complaint would be futile because it would be barred by the statute of limitations” where plaintiff had not satisfied the relation-back doctrine
• noting that the statute of limitations for § 1983 actions is determined by the statute of limitations for personal injury actions in the state where the incident occurred
• finding that plaintiff had not satisfied the mistake requirement of Rule 15(c)(3) because he had not mistakenly sued the wrong party, rather he had “a simple lack of knowledge of the identity of the proper party”
• “King has not satisfied this mistake requirement. King did not mistakenly sue the wrong party. Nor did he mistakenly sue the BOP instead of suing an individual BOP officer. Rather, King had (and still has

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).