Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

(2001)

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit - 266 F.3d 186

tl;dr:

This case covers the rules governing amendments to a pleading to add a new party, after the statute of limitations for the case has run.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In the case of Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether amended complaints can relate back to the original filing date under Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dorothy Singletary, mother of deceased prisoner Edward Singletary, sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and others for civil rights violations, claiming indifference to her son's mental health needs led to his suicide.

Singletary filed the lawsuit just before the statute of limitations would have expired. Later, she attempted to add psychologist Robert Regan as a defendant, claiming he was one of the previously unknown officers involved in her son's negligent care. The district court denied this amendment because it didn't relate back to the original complaint per Rule 15(c) and would be barred by the statute of limitations. Singletary appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

The appeals court used a notice and identity of interest test to determine whether Regan could be added as a defendant but found that Singletary failed to provide evidence of Regan having proper notice within the required 120-day period after the original complaint was filed. This case now serves as an authority on the relation back of amended complaints and federalism, balancing justice and efficiency with finality and certainty in federal judicial power.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingSingletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections case brief facts & holding

Facts:Singletary sued the PA Dept of Corrections and state correctional...

Holding:Plaintiff may not amend her complaint.The court does a step-by-step...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: BECKER, Chief Judge.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The plaintiff's appeal in a civil rights lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and State Correctional Institute at Rockview was denied, except for former Superintendent Joseph Mazurkiewicz. The District Court correctly denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add Robert Regan, a psychologist at SCI-Rockview, as a defendant due to failure to meet the notice and mistake requirements of Rule 15(c)(3). The court suggests amending Rule 15(c)(3)(B) to allow for replacing "John Doe" or "Unknown Person" with a real defendant. The case involves a lawsuit filed by Dorothy Singletary against PADOC, SCI-Rockview, Mazurkiewicz, and “Unknown Corrections Officers” alleging cruel and unusual punishment and wrongful death after her son committed suicide in his cell at SCI-Rockview. The District Court granted summary judgment for defendants on various claims due to the Eleventh Amendment, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court erred by not granting her leave to amend her complaint to add Robert Regan as a defendant. The court found no merit in the plaintiff's assertion that the court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant Mazurkiewicz. The legal issue in this case is whether the plaintiff can use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3) to substitute a defendant named Regan in place of "Unknown Corrections Officers" in her amended complaint and have it relate back to her original complaint, even though the statute of limitations has expired. The court has provided guidance on the meaning of "notice" in the context of Rule 15(c)(3), which does not require actual service of process, but can be deemed to have occurred when a party who has reason to expect their involvement as a defendant hears of the commencement of litigation through informal means. The court has determined that the "shared attorney" method is a valid way of imputing notice under Rule 15(c)(3) when an originally named party and the party sought to be added are represented by the same attorney. However, the court rejected the plaintiff's argument that Regan received sufficient notice through the "shared attorney" method because there is no evidence that the attorney who represented the defendants during the 120-day period had any relationship with Regan or contacted her about the case. The court must determine whether the plaintiff has met all three conditions of 15(c)(3) and whether the defendant, Regan, was properly notified within the 120-day period.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections

Chat for Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
brief-294
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.