complaint, filed after the two-year statute of limitations for the claims which it contained.” Id. Thus, even though Williams’ § 1983 claim arises from the same incident as her tort claims, and even though her original complaint was filed within two years of that incident, her § 1983 was time-barred because the tort claims were not timely filed. Williams argues, however, that the defendants waived their limitations defense to all her claims by not asserting it in their answer to the second amended complaint or at any other time during the next twenty months. This argument of course is frivolous with respect to her § 1983 claim insofar as the defendants moved to dismiss that claim as soon as Williams amended her complaint to add it. See Massey v. Helman, 196 F.3d 727, 735 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). That leaves only Williams’ contention that
holding that failure to plead affirmative defense to original complaint does not amount to waiver where defense is raised in response to amended complaint holding that the plaintiff waived an objection to the defendants failure to plead qualified immunity as an affirmative defense holding that complaint need not anticipate statute of limitations which is an affirmative defense holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint