Kaid v. Tatum

Background

Saeed Kaid filed this pro se action alleging that defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The opinion says he was incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Center in Fairton, New Jersey. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront, although prisoners remain responsible for the filing fee under the applicable statute.

Kaid alleged that, on January 9, 2017, the United States Marshals’ Service transported him from a state-run facility to the Metropolitan Correctional Center, or MCC. He said MCC staff failed to follow federal prison policy when placing him in the general population, where a cooperating witness in his case was housed. Kaid alleged that the cooperating witness attacked him the next morning with a knife, causing injuries to his back, head, left foot, and ankle.

Kaid further alleged that medical and other prison personnel did not adequately respond to his pain and mobility problems after the attack. He said he received an ankle brace, naproxen, and later treatment at a local hospital, but did not receive the stronger medication or crutches he requested. He also described statements and conduct by other staff that he viewed as threatening or retaliatory.

The caption lists E. L. Tatum, Jr., Warden, and named and unknown defendants, identifying twenty-eight total defendants. The body of the complaint identifies four defendants, while the factual allegations refer to additional people who are not named in the caption. The court therefore said it was unclear against whom Kaid intended to assert claims.

Legal framework

Because Kaid alleged constitutional violations by federal employees, the court construed the complaint as raising claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics. A Bivens claim is a lawsuit seeking a remedy for certain constitutional violations by federal officials.

The court explained that Bivens claims use the three-year limitations period applicable to certain New York personal-injury claims. A claim generally begins to accrue when the plaintiff knows of the claim or has enough information that a reasonable person would investigate and discover it. The court also stated that an Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim generally accrues on the date of the alleged incident.

Kaid’s alleged events occurred between January 9 and February 3, 2017. Based on the three-year period, the court calculated that he generally had until February 3, 2020, to file a timely claim. Kaid signed the complaint on February 6, 2020, but the opinion says he did not identify when he submitted it to the prison mailing system. Under the prisoner-mailbox rule, a filing is treated as filed when the prisoner delivers it to prison officials for mailing. The envelope was postmarked May 1, 2020, and the court received the complaint on May 11, 2020.

Ruling

The court did not finally dismiss the action. Instead, it directed Kaid to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take the proposed action—by submitting a declaration within thirty days. The declaration had to be sent to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and identify docket number 20-CV-3643. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Kaid and note service on the docket.

The court stated that if Kaid failed to respond or failed to show why the action was timely, it would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim as time barred. No summons would issue at that time.