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

Background

Abdullah Spencer Nimham-El-Dey sued Health and Hospitals, PA Patrick, Dr. Ramos, the Family Health Institute, and Beth Israel Hospital. The court understood “Health and Hospitals” to refer to New York City Health + Hospitals. Nimham-El-Dey alleged that, while detained in 2013, he was prescribed meloxicam even after telling PA Patrick that it was not agreeing with him. He alleged that doctors at the Family Health Institute continued administering meloxicam after his release. In 2015, he suffered gastrointestinal bleeding and three episodes of fainting. Doctors at Beth Israel Hospital performed emergency surgery during one episode, and he alleged that the surgery caused or left him with several continuing health problems. He described his claims as gross negligence and medical malpractice.

The court construed the complaint as asserting federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state-law medical-malpractice claims. It ordered Nimham-El-Dey to explain why the § 1983 claims should not be dismissed as untimely and why the state-law claims should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. He filed a declaration in response.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear them.

The court held that Nimham-El-Dey had not shown that equitable tolling should extend the deadline for his § 1983 claims. Equitable tolling can extend a limitations period in some circumstances, including specific allegations that a defendant fraudulently concealed a cause of action. The court found that Nimham-El-Dey offered only general assertions that Dr. Ramos and PA Patrick knew about his medical condition and failed to tell him that he had a lawsuit. He did not provide specific facts describing what either defendant concealed, who was responsible, how the concealment misled him, or what was obtained through the alleged fraud. The court also rejected his references to other federal statutes, including racketeering laws, because he had not brought a racketeering case and his allegations did not suggest a plausible claim under those laws.

As to the state-law negligence and medical-malpractice claims, the court found no facts establishing diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The court also found that the complaint and declaration did not state a viable claim under the other federal statutes Nimham-El-Dey cited. The opinion therefore did not reach the underlying merits of whether the medical treatment was negligent or violated his rights.

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Nimham-El-Dey’s § 1983 claims as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). She dismissed his state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not state that either dismissal was with or without prejudice.