Israel v. Worrall et al

Filing 13

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; denying 9 Motion for Reconsideration; case is DISMISSED, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without prejudice to bringing a medical malpractice case in the state courts. Signed by Judge Timothy M. Burgess on 10/9/14. (RMC, COURT STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ADAM ISRAEL,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. WORRAL, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00158-TMB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Adam Israel, representing himself, filed a Prisoner’s Civil Rights Complaint
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 The Court granted Israel’s Application to Proceed
without Prepayment of the Filing Fee and issued an Order Directing Service and
Response, but denied his Motion for Appointment of Counsel. 2 Israel has now
moved for reconsideration as to the Court’s denial of appointment of counsel. 3
When reviewing the Complaint, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the
Court understood Israel to be alleging that he is being involuntary medicated in
violation of the Due Process Clause. 4 In his Motion for Reconsideration,
however, Israel explains that the Court has misinterpreted his case:

1

Docket 1.

2

Dockets 3-5, 7, 8.

3

Docket 9.

4

Docket 7 at 1-2 (“Adam Israel, representing himself, has filed a Prisoner’s Civil
Rights Complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he is being involuntary

The court has misconstrued Israel’s complaint as an alleged Due
Process violation by Alaska Department of Corrections for
involuntarily medicating him [Docket 1@1-2]: The medical
malpractice claim outlined in his complaint alleges that he was
falsely diagnosed with a severe mental illness, which restricts
access to rehabilitative programming, and adversely affects his
chances for discretionary parole [Docket 1@3]. The treatment of
such an illness by administration of psychotropic medication,
involuntarily or otherwise, is unwarranted. But Israel has not claimed
to be medicated “without his permission” at the present time, or that
it was the result of any procedural violation. The diagnosis of
paranoid schitzophrenia [sic] itself is in effect a sentence
condemning him, and there is no other process by which it may be
reviewed for its rationale or factual basis.
...
The sole purpose of this action is to refute the diagnosis by proving
that it is unfounded. 5
This Court has no jurisdiction over Israel’s medical malpractice case.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that
power authorized by Constitution and statute.” 6 It is Israel’s burden, as the
plaintiff, to show that the Court has jurisdiction to hear his claims. 7 “Section 1983

medicated. The Complaint, liberally construed, appears to state a plausible claim of
the violation of Israel’s right to Due Process, in violation of the United States
Constitution.”) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Loughner, 672 F.3d 731,
744 (9th Cir. 2012) (Prisoners possess “a significant liberty interest in avoiding the
unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.”) (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-22
(1990)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
5

Docket 9 at 1-2 (footnotes omitted).

6

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations
omitted); see also Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009) (Jurisdiction is “[a] court's
power to decide a case or issue a decree.”).

7

See K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1027 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“We ‘presume[ ] that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
3:14-cv-00158-TMB, Israel v. Worral, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 4

. . . creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of ‘rights . . . secured
by the Constitution and laws’ of the United States. Under the terms of the
statute,” the plaintiff must show that (1) a defendant “act[ed] under color of state
law”; to (2) “deprive [the plaintiff] of a constitutional right.” 8
As explained by the United States Supreme Court, “[m]edical malpractice
does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a
prisoner.” 9 The Court does not have jurisdiction over negligence or malpractice
actions. 10 Because Israel clarifies that he is bringing a malpractice action for
being “falsely diagnosed with a severe mental illness,” 11 rather than claiming a
constitutional violation, as the Court previously understood, his case must be
dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 12

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.’”) (quoting
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377).
8

Rehberg v. Paulk,
quotations omitted).
9

U.S.

, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1501 (2012) (citations and internal

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976).

10

See Neitzke v. Wiliams, 490 U.S. 319, 321-22 (1989) (“Insofar as Williams claimed
deficient medical care . . . [he] described a constitutionally noncognizable instance of
medical malpractice.”).

11

Docket 9 at 1.

12

But see Hertz v. Beach, 211 P.3d 668 (Alaska 2009) (Although the inmate did not
state a case under § 1983, his case was allowed to proceed in the state courts on a
state medical malpractice claim.).
3:14-cv-00158-TMB, Israel v. Worral, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This case is DISMISSED, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), without
prejudice to bringing a medical malpractice case in the state courts. 13

2.

All outstanding motions are DENIED.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Judgment in this action.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 9th day of October, 2014.
TIMOTHY M. BURGESS
United States District Judge

13

See AS 09.55.530-560 (statutes governing medical malpractice actions in Alaska);
see also Hendricks-Pearce v. State, Dept. of Corrections, 323 P.3d 30, 33 (Alaska
2014) (“While in custody, Pearce sued the State for medical malpractice and was
awarded a $369,277.88 judgment against the State in 2008.”) (citation omitted).

3:14-cv-00158-TMB, Israel v. Worral, et al.
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 4