The opinion of the court was delivered by: NORGLE
CHARLES R. NORGLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court are the motion of all defendants to strike certain irrelevant allegations from plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), and the motion of defendants, Robert Chernik and Edward Kopsky
to dismiss Counts II through V of the complaint, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (6), based upon the passage of the one year statute of limitations specified in Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 8-101.
Defendants' motion to strike certain irrelevant allegations is denied. The Second Amended Complaint does contain surplusage. Yet, many of the challenged allegations have possible relevance. See vonBulow by Auersperg v. vonBulow, 657 F. Supp. 1134, 1146 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). Moreover, defendants have shown no real prejudice to them resulting from any of the challenged allegations. See Duran v. Clover Club Foods Co., 616 F. Supp. 790, 793 (D.C. Colo. 1985).
Officer Chernik's and Officer Kopsky's motion to dismiss Counts II through V is denied in part and granted in part. On a motion to dismiss, the allegations of the complaint as well as the reasonable inferences to be drawn from them are taken as true. Doe v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 788 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1986). The plaintiff need not set out in detail the facts upon which a claim is based, but must allege sufficient facts to outline the cause of action. Id. The complaint must state either direct or inferential allegations concerning all of the material elements necessary for recovery under the relevant legal theory. Mescall v. Burrus, 603 F.2d 1266 (7th Cir. 1979). The court is not required to accept legal conclusions either alleged or inferred from pleaded facts. Carl Sandburg Village Condominium Ass'n No. 1 v. First Condominium Development Co., 758 F.2d 203, 207 (7th Cir. 1985). Dismissal under Rule 12(b) (6) is improper unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Papapetropoulous v. Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc., 795 F.2d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 1986).
Davis' claims arise from his arrest, which occurred on March 20, 1988. Under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 85, para. 8-101,
Davis had one year from the date of his arrest in which to commence a civil action against any of the officers involved in his arrest. On March 17, 1989, three days prior to the one year anniversary of his arrest, Davis filed this action naming as defendants Officer Frapolly and unknown officers. Through discovery in this action, which occurred more than one year after his arrest, Officers Chernik and Kopsky were identified as having been involved in Davis' arrest. On January 15, 1990, Davis filed a Second Amended Complaint naming Officers Chernik and Kopsky as defendants along with Officer Frapolly.
Davis' response emphasizes that formal discovery was necessary for him to obtain the information necessary to identify Officers Chernik and Kopsky and invokes, alternatively, the discovery rule, relation back, waiver and equitable tolling to avoid the application of the statute of limitations.
The discovery rule is inapplicable to this case. Plaintiff cites no cases remotely on point. Those he cites are of no support. U.S. v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S. Ct. 352, 62 L. Ed. 2d 259 (1979), is cited for the proposition that a claim does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers both the injury and the cause of the injury. See 444 U.S. at 120. Yet, Kubrick did not deal with the issue of the identify of the defendant. By "cause of the injury" the Kubrick court was referring, in the medical malpractice context, to whether it was necessary for plaintiff to "know" that his injury was negligently caused for the statute begin to run. It was not. See 444 U.S. at 122-125. Espinoza v. U.S., 715 F. Supp. 207 (N.D.Ill. 1989), merely follows Kubrick. Similarly, Gara v. Semerad, 183 Ill. App. 3d 622, 539 N.E.2d 298, 131 Ill. Dec. 945 (1st Dist. 1989), adds nothing to the equation.
There are cases which clearly hold that the discovery rule does not apply "where the undetermined fact is not the existence of the injury, but rather the identity of the tort feasor." Jackson v. Village of Rosemont, 180 Ill. App. 3d 932, 536 N.E.2d 720, 129 Ill. Dec. 670 (1st Dist. 1988); see also Hames v. Northern Illinois Gas Co., 70 Ill. App. 3d 628, 388 N.E.2d 1127, 27 Ill. Dec. 164 (2d Dist. 1979); Guebard v. Jabaay, 65 Ill. App. 3d 255, 381 N.E.2d 1164, 21 Ill. Dec. 620 (2d Dist. 1978); McDaniel v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 542 F. Supp. 716, 718-19 (N.D. Ill. 1982). These authorities preclude application of the discovery rule in this case to the running of the one year statute of limitations specified in ch. 85, para. 8-101.
Neither does relation back, under Fed.R.Civ. P. 15(c), as interpreted in Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 91 L. Ed. 2d 18, 106 S. Ct. 2379 (1986), apply here. There is no identity of interest between Officer Frapolly and the other officers. See Garcia v. Peter Carlton Enterprises, Ltd., 717 F. Supp. 1321 (N.D.Ill. 1989). That they were all police officers working out of the same district is not sufficient. Neither is it sufficient, as plaintiff suggests, that the officers were all involved in the "transaction" giving rise to the cause of action. Otherwise, the "identity" requirement would be satisfied in almost all cases, rendering it meaningless. Thus, from these facts notice cannot be imputed.
Further, there was no misnomer. There was no "mistake" concerning identity. Mistake is not the same as lack of knowledge. Plaintiff admits that there was an omission due to lack of knowledge of the identity of the proper defendant which does not constitute a "mistake" for purposes of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). See Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1980); Rylewicz v. Beaton Services Ltd., 698 F. Supp. 1391, 1399 (N.D.Ill. 1988); see also Gulley v. Fountalas, 153 Ill. App. 3d 100, 505 N.E.2d 1176, 106 Ill. Dec. 385 (1st Dist. 1987) (illustrative of state law on relation back).
Finally, there is plaintiff's claim that the doctrine of equitable tolling should apply due to defendants' acts of concealment.
See People ex rel. Skinner, 170 Ill. App. 3d 417, 524 N.E.2d 642, 653-54, 120 Ill. Dec. 612 (4th Dist. 1988); Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. Dept. of Local Gov't. Affairs, 169 Ill. App. 3d 683, 523 N.E.2d 1048, 1051-52, 120 Ill. Dec. 137 (1st Dist. 1988); see also Davenport v. A.C. Davenport & Son Co., 903 F.2d 1139 (7th Cir. 1990); Sofferin v. American Airlines, Inc., 713 F. Supp. 1219, 1226 (N.D.Ill. 1989) (illustrating federal law on tolling). This is somewhat of a novel application of the doctrine of fraudulent concealment since the concealment was allegedly of the identity of other defendants rather than of the existence of the cause of action. However, the court is not aware of any authority that this distinction would serve as a barrier to the application of the doctrine.
Preliminarily, any difficulties plaintiff had in obtaining, through formal discovery, the information necessary to identify Officers Chernik and Kopsky are really irrelevant to the issue at hand. All of this occurred more than one year after his arrest -- after the statute of limitations would have run, absent tolling. It is axiomatic that tolling must be based upon actions or ...