Willie Smith v. Hospital Authority of Cobb Co., et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Willie Pearl Smith. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 17-11512

Date Filed: 09/19/2017

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-11512
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-04736-TCB
WILLIE PEARL SMITH,
individually and as Personal Representative for and
as administratrix for the estate of Akiah Kamil Smith,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF COBB COUNTY,
COBB HOSPITAL, INC.,
WELLSTAR COBB HOSPITAL AUXILIARY, INC,
WELLSTAR HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.,
WELLSTAR MEDICAL GROUP, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 19, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 17-11512

Date Filed: 09/19/2017

Page: 2 of 4

Willie Pearl Smith, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s sua sponte
order dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction her complaint against the
Hospital Authority of Cobb County, Cobb Hospital, Wellstar Cobb Hospital
Auxiliary, Wellstar Health System, Wellstar Medical Group, Health Port
Technologies, and persons employed by them. On appeal, Smith argues that the
district court erred in dismissing her complaint because the Hill-Burton Act
provides her with a federal right of action for tortious acts committed by
institutions receiving federal funds under the Act. After careful review, we affirm.
We review a district court’s order to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction de novo. Parise Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir.
1998).

Section 1331 provides that, “[t]he district courts shall have original

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the conduct complained of must have: (1) deprived plaintiff of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and (2) been committed by
a person acting under color of state law. Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast
Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1276-77 (11th Cir. 2003). The federal right asserted
must “not supplant state tort law; liability is appropriate solely for violations of
federally protected rights.” Almand v. DeKalb Cty., 103 F.3d 1510, 1513 (11th
Cir. 1997).
2

Case: 17-11512

Date Filed: 09/19/2017

Page: 3 of 4

Here, the district court did not err in dismissing Smith’s complaint for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because it did not present a federal question. For
starters, the record reveals that Smith’s claims -- which include fraud, breach of
contract, and medical malpractice -- are all state-based. As a result, she cannot use
§ 1983 to litigate state claims in federal court. See id.
Moreover, there is no federal right of action for plaintiffs who allege tort
claims against institutions receiving federal funds under the Hill-Burton Act. See
42 U.S.C. § 291 et seq. (codifying the Hill-Burton Act and providing no federal
right of action for tort claims against hospitals receiving funding under the Act).
While the Act requires that funds be used for rural hospital modernization and to
provide care to the indigent, it does not condition the receipt of funds on nontortious medical treatment. Id. § 291c. Nothing in the Act’s text supports Smith’s
claim that the Hill-Burton Act provides a federal right of action for tort claims -indeed, the Act does not mention tortious conduct as a possible violation of the
Act, nor does it expressly provide a federal right of action for tort claims. See id.
§§ 291b, 291c (describing the allotments to each state under the Hill-Burton Act
and the requirements for each state that receives funding). As for Smith’s reliance
on Saine v. Hosp. Auth. of Hall Cty., 502 F.2d 1033 (5th Cir. 1974), 1 it is
inapplicable. Smith correctly argues that this Court held in Saine that there was a
1

In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we adopted as
binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981.
3

Case: 17-11512

Date Filed: 09/19/2017

Page: 4 of 4

private federal right of action to enforce the Hill-Burton Act, but that right was
expressly limited to violations towards indigent persons refused treatment because
they were unable to pay. Id. at 1034. The federal claim Smith alleged under the
Hill-Burton Act is for general medical malpractice, which has no connection to the
refusal to treat indigent persons for their inability to pay. See id. Because the
federal right of action recognized under the Hill-Burton Act is not for tort claims,
Smith cannot claim a deprivation of a federal right for tort claims by using the HillBurton Act, and her § 1983 claim does not contain an alleged deprivation of a
federal right. See Focus, 344 F.3d at 1277.
In short, Smith has failed to state a claim arising under the laws or
Constitution of the United States for which jurisdiction may be based under §
1331, and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

4