Manriquez, et al v. Grant, et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. This action is dismissed, in its entirety, without prejudice. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 4/8/15. (djs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
J.H.M., by his Next Friend and Mother,
GUADALUPE MANRIQUEZ,
GUADALUPE MANRIQUEZ,
Individually, and GERARDO
HERNANDEZ RIVERA,
No. C 15-4018-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ROBERT ROY GRANT, M.D., and the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING THE MOTION
TO DISMISS BY THE UNITED
STATES
___________________________
This medical malpractice action was removed to this federal court by the United
States, on behalf of an original defendant, Dr. Michael A Dehner. The United States
represented that Dr. Dehner was deemed to be a federal employee, because of his
employment by United Community Health Center. The United States represented that
United Community Health Center was, in turn, a facility that the United States Secretary
of Health and Human Services had deemed a federally supported health center eligible
for Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) coverage pursuant to the Federally Supported Health
Centers Assistance Act (FSHCAA), 42 U.S.C. § 233(g)-(n). By Order (docket no. 7),
filed April 2, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Leonard T. Strand granted a motion
to substitute the United States for Dr. Dehner as a defendant in this action.
On March 18, 2015, the United States filed the Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 6)
now before me. In its Motion To Dismiss, the United States asserts that this action should
be dismissed, in its entirety, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United States argues that the
plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies against the United States, now
pending before the United States Department of Health and Human Services, in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). On March 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their
Response To Defendant United States’ Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 8), in which they
consented to the Motion To Dismiss, but requested that their action be dismissed without
prejudice, to allow reassertion of claims, if necessary, upon the conclusion of the
administrative process.
I find that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims
against the United States, so that this action should be dismissed in its entirety. I also
find that good cause exists for dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, in their entirety, without
prejudice.
THEREFORE, the March 18, 2015, Motion To Dismiss (docket no. 6), filed by
the United States, is granted, and this action is dismissed, in its entirety, without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 8th day of April, 2015.
______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?