Nimham-El-Dey v. Health and Hospitals Corp.

Background

Abdullah Spencer Nimham-El-Dey, who was detained at the North Infirmary Command on Rikers Island, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants violated his rights through medical treatment in 2013 and 2015. He described his claims as “gross negligence” and “malpractice” and sought $100 million in damages.

Nimham-El-Dey alleged that, while detained in 2013, PA Patrick prescribed him meloxicam even though he said it was not agreeing with him. He alleged that doctors at the Family Health Institute continued giving him the medication after his release from Rikers Island. In 2015, he suffered a gastrointestinal bleed and several episodes in which he lost consciousness. At Beth Israel Hospital, doctors selected one of two possible procedures, and he alleged that the chosen procedure caused a difficult recovery and continuing health problems.

Federal claims and limitations period

Because the complaint alleged inadequate medical care while Nimham-El-Dey was detained, the court interpreted it to include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a claim when a person acting under state authority violates a right protected by the Constitution or federal law.

The court said the applicable limitations period for these claims was three years. It explained that the claims generally begin to accrue when the plaintiff knows, or has reason to know, of the injury. Based on the complaint, the court said the alleged inadequate care occurred in 2013 and that Nimham-El-Dey knew of the injury by 2015 at the latest. Because the complaint was filed in 2021, the court concluded that the federal claims appeared to be time-barred.

The court also considered whether the limitations period could be extended through equitable tolling, a narrow doctrine that can extend a filing deadline in compelling circumstances. It found that the complaint did not allege facts supporting equitable tolling, including facts showing that a defendant concealed the claim or that Nimham-El-Dey was unable to protect his legal rights because of insanity when the claims accrued.

The court noted that a statute-of-limitations defense is generally raised by the defendants, but a court may dismiss on that basis when the defense is clear from the plaintiff’s own submissions. Before doing so here, the court gave Nimham-El-Dey notice and an opportunity to respond.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

The court treated the medical-malpractice allegations as state-law claims. Federal district courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction, including jurisdiction over federal questions and, in some circumstances, disputes between citizens of different states involving more than $75,000.

The court found that the complaint indicated that Nimham-El-Dey and the defendants resided in New York. It therefore concluded that the complaint did not establish the complete difference in state citizenship required for diversity jurisdiction and directed Nimham-El-Dey to explain why the state-law claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Order

The court directed Nimham-El-Dey to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why his federal claims should not be dismissed as untimely and why his state medical-malpractice claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order stated that, if he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the federal claims would be dismissed as time-barred and the state claims would be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

No summons was issued at that time. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.