Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.”
135 citation events (107 in the last 25 years) across 36 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Shell v. Brzezniak (nywd, 2005-04-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Shell v. Brzezniak
W.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Global Crossing v. Alta Partners Holdings LDC (In Re Global Crossing Ltd.) (5×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2008 · confidence medium
This Court is not of a mind to conclude that the Estate Representative thought that naming Equi-Serve would "suffice,” see id. — because that *73 might suggest a tactical decision that the Estate Representative, from all present indications, did not make — but notes the important contrast between this case and Barrow: that when it named EquiServe, the Estate Representative had no knowledge that the defendant it had sued was either a placeholder or the wrong defendant. 57 . 74 F.3d at 1367, second change (emphasis added). 58 . 74 F.3d at 1367, third change (emphasis added). 59 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (3×) also: Cited "see"
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit stated that the “failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.” 66 F.3d at 470, as modified, 74 F.3d at 1367.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (In Re Enron Corp.) (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2006 · confidence medium
In Barrow, the plaintiff knew that suing only the police department would not suffice because “[plaintiff] was informed by the court — • within the limitations period ... that he needed to name the individual officers as defendants.” Barrow, 66 F.3d at 470, as modified, 74 F.3d at 1367.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Vineyard v. County of Nassau (2×)
E.D.N.Y · 2004 · confidence medium
“Rule 15(c) explicitly allows the relation back of an amendment due to a “mistake” concerning the identity of the parties (under certain circumstances), but the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.” Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366, 1367 (2d Cir.1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Sterling Foster & Co., Inc., Securities Lit.
E.D.N.Y · 2002 · confidence medium
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c); Soto, 80 F.3d at 35 ; Barrow, 74 F.3d at 1367; Cornwell, 23 F.3d at 705 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doyle v. Coombe
W.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
The Second Circuit has held that “Rule 15(e) explicitly allows the relation back of an amendment due to a *192 ‘mistake’ concerning the identity of the parties (under certain circumstances), but the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.” Barrow, 74 F.3d at 1367.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Byrd v. Abate (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
Id. at 469, as modified, 74 F.3d at 1366.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Force v. City of Memphis
6th Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Worthington, 8 F.3d at 1256-57 ; Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 74 F.3d 1366, 1367 (2nd Cir.1996), modifying, 66 F.3d 466 (1995). 21 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. * The Honorable Barbara K.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Manuel Soto v. Brooklyn Correctional Facility
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Therefore, Barrow was not “mistaken” for purposes of Rule 15(c) — he knew exactly what the court required. 74 F.3d at 1367.
discussed Cited "see" Hunt v. Manchester
D. Conn. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 66 F. 3d 466, 468-69 (2d Cir. 1995), opinion modified, 74 F. 3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996)(amendment substituting individual police officers for John Doe defendants was not the result of a mistake concerning their identity and thus did not relate back to the filing of the original complaint).
discussed Cited "see" Islam v. Tirelli
E.D.N.Y · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d Cir. 1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., 995 F. Supp. 2d 125, 128-131 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).
cited Cited "see" Daniels v. United States of America
E.D.N.Y · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d Cir. 1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996).
cited Cited "see" STERLING v. NEW JERSEY AQUARIUM, LLC
D.N.J. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 469 (2d Cir. 1995), modified by 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996); Skoczylas v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 961 F.2d 543, 545 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited "see" Vasquez v. DOE
S.D.N.Y. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding amended complaint did not relate back with respect to six defendants identified after the statute of limitations had run because the amendment “did not correct a mistake in the original complaint, but instead supplied information [the plaintiff] lacked at the outset”), modified by 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996); Vasconcellos, 2014 WL 4961441 , at *7 (finding § 1983 claims time-barred where the plaintiff “knew who the proper defendants were” as they “were involved in the incident” underlying the compl…
discussed Cited "see" Santos v. Zabbara
E.D.N.Y · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d Cir.1995) (holding that the Section 1983 claims against the individual officers were time-barred, in light of "[the plaintiff's] listing of ten 'John Does' in [the operative complaint], ... because he did not know the arresting officers’ names” and his filing of an amended complaint "identifying six police officers by name” only "after the statute of limitations had run”), modified on other grounds, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996); see also Tapia-Ortiz v. Doe, 171 F.3d 150 , 151-52 (2d Cir.1999) (per curiam) ("Although [the plai…
cited Cited "see" Jennis v. Rood
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" Jennis v. Rood
2d Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" Savage & Associates, P.C. v. Williams Communications (In Re Teligent Services, Inc.)
Bankr. S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 66 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Da Cruz v. Towmasters of New Jersey, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Weth-ersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Bass v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc.
E.D.N.Y · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466 , 469-70 (2d Cir.1995), modified on other grounds, 74 F.3d 1366 (1996); Integrated Resources, 815 F.Supp. at 648 .
discussed Cited "see" Taylor v. City of Winnfield
W.D. La. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 320-21 (discussing Barrow v. Wethers-field Police Dept., 66 F.3d 466 , 469-70 (2d Cir.1995), modified by 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996) ; Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d 1253, 1257 (7th Cir.1993); Wilson v. U.S. Gov’t, 23 F.3d 559, 562-63 (1st Cir.1994)).
discussed Cited "see" Wayne v. Jarvis (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep't, 66 F.3d 466 , 468 (2d Cir.1995) ("We have stated that it is familiar law that 'John Doe' pleadings cannot be used to circumvent statutes of limitations because replacing a 'John Doe' with a named party in effect constitutes a change in the party sued.") (quotations and citation omitted), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996); Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir.1996) ("Substituting a named defendant for a 'John Doe' defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere substitution of parties."). 5 Because Wayne changed the parties being sued af…
discussed Cited "see" Wayne v. Jarvis
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. 8 Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 468 (2d Cir. 1995) (“We have stated that it is familiar law that ‘John Doe’ pleadings cannot be used to circumvent statutes of limitations because replacing a ‘John Doe’ with a named party in effect constitutes a change in the party sued.”) (quotations and citation omitted), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996); Cox v. Treadway, 75 F.3d 230, 240 (6th Cir. 1996) (“Substituting a named defendant for a ‘John Doe’ defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere substitution of parties.”).
discussed Cited "see" Blaskiewicz v. County of Suffolk
E.D.N.Y · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Department, 66 F.3d 466 , 469 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (1996) (citing Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 705 (2d Cir.1994) (no mistake of law where complaint identified individuals involved but did not seek to add as individual defendants until after the statute of limitations had expired)).
cited Cited "see" Lettis v. United States Postal Service
E.D.N.Y · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 469 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (1996) (citing Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 705 (2d Cir.1994)).
cited Cited "see" Marion v. Groh
D. Conn. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dept., 66 F.3d 466 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Henry v. Federal Deposit Insurance
D. Kan. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Watson v. Unipress, Inc., 733 F.2d 1386, 1389 (10th Cir.1984); see Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 468 (2d Cir.1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir.1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kyle v. Amtrak
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Mot. at 7-8 (“Therefore, using all the resources currently in Plaintiff’s position, and being up against an impending statute of limitations deadline, Plaintiff has established good cause. . . .”) 15(c) does not allow an amended complaint adding new defendants to relate back if the newly-added defendants were not named originally because the plaintiff did not know their identities.” Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d Cir. 1995), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 (2d Cir. 1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Whetsel v. Montas
E.D.N.Y · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
June 25, 2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Barrow v. Wethersfield Police Dep’t, 66 F.3d 466 , 470 (2d 8 Cir. 1995) (“Rule 15(c) explicitly allows the relation back of an amendment due to a ‘mistake’ concerning the identity of the parties (under certain circumstances), but the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.”), modified, 74 F.3d 1366 , 1367 (2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509, 517 (2d Cir. 2013) (“This Circuit has interpreted [Rule …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elgin Barrow
v.
Wethersfield Police Dept., Wethersfield, Town Of, and John Doe, Officer 1-10, Joseph F. Cefaratti, Kevin Dillon, John Karangekis, Arthur Kureczka, Mark Miele and K.M. Monde
93-2821.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jan 31, 1996.
74 F.3d 1366
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

74 F.3d 1366

Elgin BARROW, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WETHERSFIELD POLICE DEPT., Wethersfield, Town of, and John
Doe, Officer 1-10, Defendants,
Joseph F. Cefaratti, Kevin Dillon, John Karangekis, Arthur
Kureczka, Mark Miele and K.M. Monde, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 93-2821.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Sept. 14, 1995.
Amended Jan. 31, 1996.

Present: OAKES, KEARSE, LEVAL, Circuit Judges.

AMENDED ORDER

PER CURIAM.

1

This order serves to modify this panel's opinion filed in this case on September 14, 1995, 66 F.3d 466 as follows:

2

Insert on slip op. page 7392 [66 F.3d at 469] before first full paragraph:

3

In 1966, Rule 15(c) was amended to include the language at issue in this case: an amended complaint relates back if the misidentified party "knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party." Rule 15(c)(3)(B). The Advisory Committee Notes to the amendment state that this subsection cures the problems that arise, for example, when a defendant mistakenly sues an agency of the government without knowing that the cause of action requires the defendant to sue an agency head. An amendment to cure such a mistake, the Notes indicate, should relate back to the original amendment if the requirements of Rule 15(c) are met--in other words, such an amendment arises out of a "mistake" as Rule 15(c) intends that term.

4

Here we are not faced with a plaintiff who mistakenly believed that suing the police department, rather than a department head, would suffice. Instead, Barrow was informed by the court--within the limitations period as Barrow construes it--that he needed to name the individual officers as defendants. Therefore, Barrow was not "mistaken" for purposes of rule 15(c)--he knew exactly what the court required. Barrow's subsequent failure to identify the individual officers is a separate matter to which Rule 15(c) does not speak.

5

Change first two lines of paragraph beginning "The Seventh Circuit" on slip op. page 7392 [66 F.3d at 469] to read:

6

The Seventh Circuit, in a case where a plaintiff sought to amend a complaint against "unknown police officers," has held that Rule 15(c):

7

Change last sentence of paragraph beginning "We are compelled" on slip op. page 7392 [66 F.3d at 470] to read:

8

Rule 15(c) explicitly allows the relation back of an amendment due to a "mistake" concerning the identity of the parties (under certain circumstances), but the failure to identify individual defendants when the plaintiff knows that such defendants must be named cannot be characterized as a mistake.

9

SO ORDERED.