United States District Court, D. Delaware
before me is Defendant Morris's Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings. (D.I. 83). The Parties have fully briefed the
issues. (D.I. 83, 86, 89). For the reasons set out below, I
will GRANT Defendant Sheryl Morris's motion.
12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is reviewed under
the same standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when
the Rule 12(c) motion alleges that the plaintiff fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Turbe
v. Gov't of the V.I., 938 F.2d 427, 428 (3d Cir.
1991); Revell v. Port Auth, 598 F.3d 128, 134 (3d
Cir. 2010). The court must accept the factual allegations in
the complaint and take them in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007); Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 406
(2002). "When there are well-ple[d] factual allegations,
a court should assume their veracity and then determine
whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to
relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679
12, 2014, Plaintiff, a Jewish inmate, joined an ongoing
religious discrimination suit originally brought by a group
of Catholic and Muslim inmates. (C.A. 12-1120, D.I. 104;
see also C.A. 12-1120, D.I. 1 (original
complaint filed September 12, 2012)). The Court severed
Plaintiffs claims from the original suit on April 22, 2015.
first mentioned Sheryl Morris in an Amended Complaint filed
on September 29, 2014. (C.A. 12-1120, D.I. 147-1 at 6).
Plaintiff consistently included mention of Ms. Morris in
filings from that point. (See D.I. 3 at 9 (Complaint
filed April 22, 2015); D.I. 6 at 12 (Amended Complaint filed
May 29, 2015)). Plaintiff named Ms. Morris as a
defendant for the first time in the Amended Complaint filed
on August 7, 2015. (D.I. 12). On June 26, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a Third Amended Complaint, which states that his claim
against Defendant Morris stems from events occurring in 2009
or 2010. (D.I. 65 at ¶ 39). Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges, "Morris violated his constitutional rights when
she refused to hire Plaintiff for employment due to his
sincerely held religious belief that he is to refrain from
working Friday evening at sundown to . Saturday evening at
sundown in observance of the Sabbath." (D.I. 86 at 1).
claims against Defendant Morris are time-barred. The claims
arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("Section 1983")
and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq.)
("RLUIPA"). The statute of limitations for claims
arising under Section 1983 is two years. Dickens v.
Taylor, 671 F.Supp.2d 542, 547 (D. Del. 2009). "The
two-year statute of limitations begins to run when the
plaintiff should have known about the injury in
question." Id. The statute of limitations for
claims arising under RLUIPA is four years. Robinson v.
Superintendent Houtzdale SCI, 693 Fed.Appx. 111, 116 (3d
Cir. 2017) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1658). Based on
Plaintiffs representations, the statute of limitations for
the alleged misconduct would have expired, at the latest, on
December 31, 2014. Plaintiffs August 7, 2015 addition of Ms.
Morris as a defendant in this suit was too
late. Thus, Plaintiffs claims are time-barred
and I will grant Defendant Morris's motion for judgment
on the pleadings.
 The Amended Complaint of May 29, 2015
named fourteen defendants. (D.I. 6 at 4-6): Ms. Morris was
not one of the fourteen. Defendant sought to add Ms. Morris
as a defendant by a motion filed July 2, 2015. (D.I. 8). The
motion was granted on August 7, 2015. (D.I. 11).
 Plaintiff argues that the relevant
date for determining whether the claims were timely is
September 12, 2012-the date of the original complaint. It is
not. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Morris do not
"relate back" to earlier complaints. Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1) provides:
"An amendment to a pleading relates back to the
date of the original pleading when:
(B) the amendment asserts a claim or defense that
arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set
out-or attempted to be set out-in the original pleading;
C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of
the party against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule
15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied and if, within the period provided
by Rule 4(m) for serving the summons and complaint, the party
to be brought in by amendment:
(i) received such notice of the action that it will
not be prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would
have been brought against it, but for a mistake concerning
the proper ...