neochart v2 research

cases/42usc1983/f3d-935-437-nobre-v-louisiana.case

Source: cases/42usc1983/f3d-935-437-nobre-v-louisiana.case

Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_935/0437_01/index.html

Verbatim annotated passages

To determine whether the amended complaint relates back to Moore's original complaint, the court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).
It would be allowed to relate back under Louisiana law, and is also allowed to relate back under Rule 15(c)(1).
We REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Nobre and Guidry's wrongful death and Section 1983 claims as time barred and remand for further proceedings.

Exact source text

casedsl 1.2
# author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high)
# triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10)

case /f3d/935/0437-01
  name    Nobre v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety
  cite    935 F.3d 437 (2019)
  court   United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  date    2019-08-19
  url     catalog/cases/f3d/volume_935/0437_01/index.html
  source  ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl sha1=3bcefd8cbbc318985f9c4be2eb1557793dae8cc4 chars=19570

opinion maj : panel by Higginbotham @0..19570 controlling
party defs : Louisiana Department of Corrections and the warden (movants asserting limitations)
party cotton : Kenneth Cotton, deceased inmate (claims pursued by his children's tutors, Nobre and Guidry)
count sol : limitations defense to the substituted plaintiffs' wrongful-death and § 1983 claims
count dp : failure to protect from inmate attack and to provide timely medical care

law 42usc1983
  role    applied
  posture civil; mother of an inmate killed by another inmate sued prison officials (state wrongful death and § 1983 failure to protect / medical care); after the one-year period she substituted the decedent's children's tutors as plaintiffs; district court dismissed the amended complaint as time-barred (no relation back); CA5 reversed and remanded
  result  remanded

defense statute-of-limitations : not-satisfied [law]
  route   relation-back
  pattern proper plaintiffs (decedent's children) substituted sixteen days after the borrowed one-year period; prison's own record listed the children
  party   defs
  count   sol
  fact @6224..6419 [supports] | Moore's original complaint was filed on September 14, 2016, within the relevant limitation periods; Nobre and Guidry's amended complaint was filed on March 9, 2017, after that period had expired.
  fact @9732..9850 [cuts-against] | In fact, the amended complaint differs from Moore's original pleading only with respect to who is bringing the claims.
  fact @11204..11335 [cuts-against] | The document unambiguously indicates that the Department-which produced and maintained this document-knew of Cotton's two children.
  fact @14778..14972 [cuts-against absent] | But the defendants present no indication that allowing the amendment to relate back would prejudice their capacity to defend the suit, for example, that they would be deprived of relevant proof.
  rule @6420..6566 | To determine whether the amended complaint relates back to Moore's original complaint, the court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1).
  held @15253..15364 | It would be allowed to relate back under Louisiana law, and is also allowed to relate back under Rule 15(c)(1).
  held @15370..15523 | We REVERSE the district court's dismissal of Nobre and Guidry's wrongful death and Section 1983 claims as time barred and remand for further proceedings.
  gloss   Amended complaint substituting the proper plaintiffs related back under Rule 15(c)(1)(A) and Louisiana's Giroir test, defeating the limitations defense at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
  ? route: the menu defines relation-back for amendments naming new DEFENDANTS; here the amendment substituted new PLAINTIFFS (Rule 15(c) applied by analogy)
  ? basis: decided on a motion to dismiss but with a document outside the pleadings (the Master Record Inquiry) that the panel held could be considered; coded [law] rather than [pleaded]

element deprivation.eighth-amendment : not-reached
  party   cotton
  count   dp
  gloss   Merits of the failure-to-protect / medical-care claim not addressed; the panel only notes, for jurisdiction, that the complaint states colorable Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, and remands.