## Facts

- Richard Worthington was arrested on February 25, 1989 by officers of the Village of Peoria Heights, Illinois.
- Worthington had a preexisting injury to his left hand and told the arresting officer about it.
- Worthington alleged the arresting officer grabbed and twisted the injured hand; Worthington pushed the officer away and told him to “take it easy.”
- A second officer arrived; the officers wrestled Worthington to the ground, handcuffed him, and then lifted him by the handcuffs.
- Worthington alleged the lifting caused broken bones in his left hand.
- On February 25, 1991, the last day of Illinois’s two-year limitations period for § 1983 claims, Worthington filed suit against the Village and “three unknown named police officers.”
- After removal to federal court and dismissal of the Village claims, Worthington amended on June 17, 1991 (after limitations expired) to name Officers Dave Wilson and Jeff Wall in place of the unknown officers.

## Issues

1. Whether an amended complaint substituting named police officers for previously “unknown” officers after the statute of limitations expires relates back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c).
2. Whether the use of “unknown” defendants reflects a “mistake concerning the identity of the proper party” under Rule 15(c), as opposed to a lack of knowledge.
3. Whether the newly named officers received the notice required by Rule 15(c) to permit relation back.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of the amended complaint as time-barred.
- The court held Rule 15(c) did not permit relation back because Worthington’s failure to name Wilson and Wall was not a “mistake” about identity but a lack of knowledge of their names.
- Because the amendment did not relate back, the claims against Wilson and Wall were filed outside the limitations period and could not proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 15(c), adding or changing a party after limitations may relate back only if the Rule’s requirements are met, including that the change concerns a “mistake” about the proper party’s identity.
- Using “unknown” or “John Doe” placeholders due to not knowing a defendant’s identity is not a Rule 15(c) “mistake”; later substitution of the correct names generally does not relate back on that basis.
- Rule 15(c)’s notice requirement (whether measured by the pre-1991 limitations-period notice rule or the amended rule’s service-period framework) does not cure the absence of the required “mistake” element.

## Conclusion

The court held that a plaintiff who sues unknown officers and later identifies them after the statute of limitations has run cannot rely on Rule 15(c) relation back absent a true misidentification; lack of knowledge of names is insufficient, so the amended § 1983 claims were untimely.


Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d 1253 (7th Cir. 1993)