Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ordered pro se plaintiff Christopher Tahchawwickah to show cause why his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action should not be dismissed. The court concluded that the alleged denial of mental health medication in 2023 appeared barred by Kansas’s two-year statute of limitations and directed plaintiff to respond by May 29, 2026. The order was issued by Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara.
Holdings
- Kansas's two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions applies to these § 1983 claims, while federal law determines when the claims accrued.
- The complaint plainly appeared barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because the alleged violations occurred in 2023 and the complaint was filed on April 28, 2026.
Questions Presented
- Whether the complaint should be dismissed during prisoner screening because the face of the complaint shows that the plaintiff's § 1983 claims are barred by Kansas's two-year statute of limitations.
- Whether the plaintiff should be required to show cause before dismissal when the complaint does not allege facts supporting statutory or equitable tolling.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (19)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(applied)
- Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992)(applied)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(applied)
- Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006)(applied)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 558, 570 (2007)(applied)
- Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991)(applied)
- Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007)(applied)
- Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997)(applied)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007)(applied)
- Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…