Kaid v. Tatum

Background

Saeed Kaid filed the action in 2020 and later filed an amended complaint. The court construed that complaint as asserting three claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics and three claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Magistrate Judge Cave recommended dismissing all claims with prejudice and denying leave to amend. The recommendation stated that the three Bivens claims involved new contexts in which special factors counseled against creating a Bivens remedy. It also recommended dismissing the Federal Tort Claims Act claims because one had not been administratively exhausted and the other two were untimely. The recommendation warned that failing to object on time could waive further review. Defendants mailed the recommendation to Kaid on January 24, 2024, and the court found that objections were due February 12, 2024. No objections were filed.

Court’s Analysis

Because no timely objections were filed, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake on the face of the record. The court found the recommendation’s reasoning sound and adopted it with a modification concerning the legal basis and type of dismissal.

For the Bivens claims, the court agreed that Kaid failed to state a claim. It ruled that the claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court dismissed the Bivens claims with prejudice and denied leave to amend them.

For the interference-with-remedies Federal Tort Claims Act claim, the court agreed that Kaid had not presented that claim to the Bureau of Prisons’ regional office. The court treated the administrative-exhaustion requirement as jurisdictional and dismissed that claim under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a claim. The dismissal was without prejudice. The court nevertheless denied leave to amend that claim.

The court treated the time limits for Kaid’s other two Federal Tort Claims Act claims as nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules. It concluded that those claims were untimely and that equitable tolling did not apply. It dismissed those claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied leave to amend them.

Disposition

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation with the stated modification. The Bivens claims were DISMISSED with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6); the interference-with-remedies Federal Tort Claims Act claim was DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1); and the other two Federal Tort Claims Act claims were DISMISSED with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). Leave to amend was DENIED. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions and close the case. The court also stated that Kaid’s failure to file timely objections precluded appellate review of the decision.