Van Den Heuvel v. Shingle Springs Tribal Wellness

Filing 26

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 7/20/2015 DENYING 25 Plaintiff's motion to reopen this action. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HUEVEL,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:14-cv-1555-TLN-EFB-PS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO REOPEN

v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

16

Defendant.

17

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Jean Marc Van Den Heuvel’s

18

(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reopen1. (ECF No. 25.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s evidence and

19

arguments. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the Motion to Reopen. (ECF No.

20

25.)

21

I.

22

In February of 2014, Plaintiff filed a claim in small claims court against Shingle Springs

23

Tribal Wellness, alleging injury from negligent dental treatment. (ECF No. 1-1.) The case was

24

removed from small claims court to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of

25

California, and the United States of America (“Defendant”) was substituted as defendant pursuant

26

to 42 U.S.C. § 223(g) (substituting the United States as defendant for employees of the Public

27

1

28

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a pro se litigant and thus the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s letter to the Court Clerk as a Motion to
Reopen under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982) (holding
that federal courts are instructed to construe pro se pleadings liberally).

1

1

Health Service sued for conduct within the scope of their employment). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-2, and 1-

2

3.)

3

In October of 2014, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 12(b)(1), alleging that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff

5

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (ECF No. 10.) On December 3, 2014, a hearing on

6

Defendant’s motion was held where Plaintiff conceded that he had not filed an administrative

7

claim. (ECF No. 21 at 5.) In February of 2015, Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan issued his

8

Findings and Recommendations (“F & R”), advising that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be

9

granted. In March of 2015, this Court adopted the F & R and granted the motion to dismiss.

10

(ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reopen in May of 2015. (ECF No. 25.)

11

II.

ANALYSIS

12

The issue is whether Plaintiff has provided a sufficient basis demonstrating he has met the

13

statutory administrative claim requirements of the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), thereby

14

conferring subject-matter jurisdiction on the Court. The FTCA waives the United States’

15

immunity for certain tort claims, subject to certain requirements. (ECF No. 21 at 3.) Section

16

2675(a) of the FTCA provides that before a litigant may pursue an injury claim for money

17

damages against the United States, the litigant must first have “presented the claim to the

18

appropriate Federal agency and his claim [must] have been finally denied by the agency in

19

writing[,] and sent by certified or registered mail.” 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The FTCA

20

administrative claim requirement is jurisdictional and — because the FTCA waives sovereign

21

immunity — must be strictly construed in favor of the United States. Brady v. United States, 211

22

F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000).

23

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide new evidence to demonstrate he has overcome the

24

administrative appeal requirement. Plaintiff has submitted a copy of his administrative claim

25

form (the “form”) filed on December 3, 2014, the same day as the hearing on the motion to

26

dismiss. (ECF No. 25 at 9.) The form sets forth the outline of his claim, but there is no indication

27

that there has been a decision on the claim; the form is unsigned by Plaintiff, and there are no

28

markings to even indicate receipt by the United States Department of Health and Human
2

1

Services. (ECF No. 25 at 9.) Plaintiff also attaches his letter to the administrator which requests

2

an initial review of the claim. (ECF No. 25 at 6–8.) Finally, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen does

3

not allege there has been a final denial of the administrative claim. (ECF No. 25 at 1.) Based on

4

the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of

5

the FTCA by exhausting his administrative remedies.

6

III.

7

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Reopen. (ECF

8

CONCLUSION

No. 25.)

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: July 20, 2015

12
13

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3