GAGNON v. GOSSELIN et al
Filing
13
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 10 MOTION to Dismiss filed by AMANDA SEIRUP. Objections to R&R due by 6/13/2016. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (CWP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
LUC JOHN GAGNON,
Plaintiff
v.
BERT RAND GOSSELIN, et al.,
Defendant
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16-cv-00024-NT
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON
DEFENDANT AMANDA SEIRUP’S MOTION TO DISMISS
In this action, Plaintiff Luc Gagnon, an inmate at the Maine State Prison, alleges that
Defendants Amanda Seirup, Ph.D., and Bert Rand Gosselin denied him necessary treatment
regarding his mental health condition.
The matter is before the Court on Defendant Seirup’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.)
Through her motion, Defendant argues that the case against her should be dismissed because
Plaintiff has not complied with the pre-litigation procedures required by the Maine Health Security
Act for claims of medical malpractice. Plaintiff has not filed a written opposition to the motion. I
recommend the Court grant in part and deny in part the motion.
Facts
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a form complaint specified for use by prisoners
alleging civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Gosselin told Plaintiff he did not have time for Plaintiff when Plaintiff reported suicide
ideation, and that Plaintiff attempted to commit suicide later that day. Plaintiff also alleges that
after these events, Defendant Seirup, a prison physician, failed to provide him with his necessary
medication.
Discussion
Defendant evidently argues in part that if the Court grants her motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s
medical malpractice claim, the Court should the Plaintiff’s complaint against her. Dismissal of
the entire complaint against Defendant Seirup, however, is not appropriate based on the pending
motion. Plaintiff’s complaint, on the form for claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, can
reasonably be construed as Plaintiff’s attempt to assert a federal civil rights claim. In her motion
to dismiss, Defendant did not address Plaintiff’s federal claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s federal
claim would remain even if the Court were to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for medical malpractice.
To the extent Plaintiff attempts to assert a medical malpractice claim, Plaintiff has not
alleged in his complaint or otherwise demonstrated that he has complied with the pre-litigation
requirements of the Maine Health Security Act, 24 M.R.S. § 2851, et seq. Among other things,
Plaintiff’s filings lack any evidence to suggest Plaintiff served and filed a written notice of claim
in accordance with or otherwise satisfied the requirements of 24 M.R.S. § 2853.
Given Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the Maine Health Security Act,
which is a necessary prerequisite to the filing of a medical malpractice action, dismissal of any
negligence claim Plaintiff intended to assert is appropriate. See Henderson v. Laser Spine Inst.,
815 F. Supp. 2d 353, 383 (D. Me. 2011); Kidder v. Richmond Area Health Ctr., 595 F. Supp. 2d
139, 143 (D. Me. 2009). see also Hewett v. Inland Hosp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 84, 88 (D. Me. 1999)
(remanding medical malpractice claim to state court despite existence of related federal EMTALA
claim “because retaining jurisdiction until the conclusion of the screening panel proceedings would
unduly delay resolution of the EMTALA claim”).1
1
Alternatively, the Court could stay further proceedings pending resolution of the state pre-litigation screening
process. See Henderson, 815 F. Supp. 2d at 383 (staying proceedings pending completion of the pre-litigation
screening process where the court’s jurisdiction was based on diversity and where the court retained jurisdiction over
multiple related state law claims). I do not recommend a stay in this case because Plaintiff’s malpractice claim is not
2
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court grant in part Defendant Seirup’s
motion to dismiss, and dismiss without prejudice any state law medical malpractice claim Plaintiff
has asserted against Defendant Seirup.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district court is sought,
together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served
with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within fourteen (14)
days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to de
novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 27th day of May, 2016.
within this Court’s original jurisdiction, because Plaintiff has not asserted any additional state law claims within the
supplemental jurisdiction of the Court, because dismissal of the action without prejudice enables Plaintiff to pursue
his state law claim in state court, and because a stay would unduly delay the resolution of Plaintiff’s civil rights claim.
3
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?