Wright v. United States of America et al

Filing 20

OPINION & ORDER: The United States' Motion to Dismiss 8 is Granted and Wright's claims against the United States are Dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this court under Rule 12(b)(1). Additionally, Wright's remaining claims against Tuality Community Hospital are Remanded to state court. Signed on 4/27/15 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

AIMEE J. WRIGHT,
Plaintiff,
3: 14-CV-01861-PK
OPINION AND ORDER

v.

UNITED STATES and TUALITY
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL,
Defendants.

PAP AK, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff prose Aimee J. Wright filed this action against defendants Tuality Community
Hospital and the United States ("Defendants") alleging malpractice and personal injury as a
result of allegedly negligent medical treatment in connection with Wright's labor and delivery at
the facilities of defendant Tuality Community Hospital.
Before the court is the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER

Jurisdiction (#8) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(l). The United States moves
on the basis that Wright has failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Federal Toti
Claims Act ("FTCA"). I have considered the motion and all of the pleadings on file under the
liberal pleading standards afforded to the filings of a prose plaintiff. For the reasons that follow,
the United States' motion to dismiss is granted and Wright's claims against the United States are
dismissed. Additionally Wright's claims against Tuality are remanded to state court.

BACKGROUND
On July 10, 2014, Wright filed this medical malpractice action in the Washington County
Circuit Court for the State of Oregon (#1). In her complaint, Wright alleges that she received
medical care at Tuality Community Hospital, specifically from Dr. Michael J. Schiferl, MD.
Complaint, #1-1, ii 4. Wright alleges that Dr. Schiferl was negligent in providing her care and
that Wright was injured as a result of that negligence. Id at ii 10.
The United States removed to this comi on November 21, 2014 (#1), and substituted
itself as a defendant in this action in the place of Dr. Schiferl and Tuality Community Hospital
(#5), as it deems Dr. Schiferl a federal employee and deemed Tuality a federal entity pursuant to
the Federally Suppmied Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) and (g). The
United States later filed a correction to that motion (#7) wherein it redacted its attempt to
substitute itself for Tuality Community Hospital, noting that it eiTed in deeming Tuality a federal
entity.
On December 11, 2014, the United States filed this motion to dismiss Wright's claims
against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (#8). On February 4, 2015, this comi issued a
scheduling order (#12) imposing a deadline ofFebrumy 23, 2015, upon Wright for any response
Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER

to the United States' motion. Despite notice sent to Wright (#13), entered the same day as this
court's order, Wright did not submit a response to the United States' motion. This matter is now
ready for decision.

LEGAL STANDARD
I.

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
"Federal courts are coutts of limited jurisdiction." Assoc. ofAm. i'vfed. Colleges v. United

States, 217 F.3d 770, 778-779 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Coutts presume that a case

"lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the
party assertingjurisdiction." Id Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(l) allows for a
defendant to challenge subject matter jurisdiction.
A motion under Rule l 2(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may be
either "facial" or "factual." See Safe Air v. 1\!feyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing
White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). In a facial attack on subject-matter

jurisdiction, the moving party asserts that a plaintiff's allegations are insufficient on their face to
invoke federal jurisdiction, whereas in a factual attack, the moving party disputes the factual
allegations that, if true, would give rise to subject-matter jurisdiction. Where a defendant raises a
facial challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction, the factual allegations of the complaint are
presumed to be true, and the motion may be granted only if the plaintiff fails to allege an element
necessaiy for subject matter jurisdiction. See Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d
1036, 1039 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2003). By contrast, where a defendant raises a factual challenge to
federal jurisdiction, "the district court may review evidence beyond the complaint without
converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment." Safe Air v. 1\!feyer, 373
Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER

F.3d at 1039 (citing Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n. 2). The court "need not presume the
truthfulness of the plaintiff's allegations" and the plaintiff "must furnish affidavits or other
evidence necessmy to satisfy its burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction." Id. (citing

White, 227 F.3d at 1242; Savage, 343 F.3d at 1039 n. 2.)
"Defective allegations of jurisdiction may be amended, upon te1ms, in trial or appellate
courts." 28 U.S.C. § 1653. It is improper to dismiss an action based on a defective allegation of
jurisdiction without leave to amend "unless it is clear, upon de nova review, that the complaint
could not be saved by amendment." Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 828 n. 6 (9th Cir.
2002) (citing Lee v. City a/Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 692 (9th Cir. 2001)).

II.

Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court determines at anytime
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the cou1t must dismiss the action."

F~d.

R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. 1vfusick, 505 F.2d 278, 280 (9th Cir. 1974)
("It has long been held that a judge can dismiss sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction").

III.

Filings of a Pro Se Plaintiff

This court must liberally constrne the filings of a pro se plaintiff and afford the plaintiff
the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). "A pro

se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the
deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment." Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles

Police Dep't., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, however, eve1y complaint must
contain "a sho1t and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER

This standard "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' "but does demand "more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a fo1mulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."' Id (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555).
ANALYSIS

Defendant United States moves to dismiss Wright's claims brought against it on the basis
that Wright has not exhausted administrative remedies available to her under the FTCA. 28
U.S.C. § 2675(a). The United States argues that exhausting those remedies is a jurisdictional
prerequisite to Wright's federal claim. I address this issue below.

I.

Tort Claims

The Ninth Circuit considers the doctrine of sovereign immunity an important limitation
on the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts. Dunn & Black, P .S. v. United States, 492
F.3d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 2007). Unless Wright satisfies the burden of establishing that this
action falls within an unequivocally expressed waiver of sovereign immunity by Congress, it
must be dismissed. Id. at 1088. The Supreme Court has held "that a waiver of sovereign
immunity is to be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign." Id (quoting
Dep't of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999)).
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) sets out the limited circumstances in which the
government waives its sovereign immunity for tort suits:
An action shall not be instituted upon a claim against the United
States for money damages for injmy or loss of property or personal
injmy or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission
Page 5 - OPINION AND ORDER

of any employee of the Govemment while acting within the scope
of his office or employment, unless the claimant shall have first
presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency and his claim
shall have been finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by
ce1iified or registered mail. The failure of an agency to make final
disposition of a claim within six months after it is filed shall, at the
option of the claimant any time thereafter, be deemed a final denial
of the claim for purposes of this section.
28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). The requirement to file an administrative claim is jurisdictional. Brady v.

United States, 211 F.3d 499, 502 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal regulations dictate that a tmi claim is
deemed to have been presented when: "a Federal agency receives from a claimant, his duly
authorized agent or legal representative, an executed Standard Form 95 or other written
notification of an incident, accompanied by a claim for money damages in a sum ce1iain for
injury to or loss of prope1iy, personal injury, or death alleged to have occuned by reason of the
incident .... " 28 C.F.R. § 14.2.
Wright does not allege executing a Standard Form 95, nor does she assert drafting and
sending any written notification of the incident at issue. See generally Complaint, # 1-1. As a
result, the United States mounts a factual challenge to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. The
United States provides a declaration from Meredith Torres, a Senior Attomey in the Depaiiment
of Health and Human Services ("HHS") Office of General Counsel, attesting that the HHS has
no record ofreceiving any FTCA claim from Wright pe1iaining to this dispute. Torres Dec., #81, if 4. Wright does not respond to the factual challenge posed by the United States nor does she
contend that she has satisfied the rigors of the FTCA.
Because Wright has not exhausted her administrative remedies under the FTCA, this
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Wright's claims against the United States. Thus,

Page 6 - OPINION AND ORDER

Wright's claims against the United States are dismissed without prejudice.

II.

Efficacy of Amendment

· The Court must permit a pro se litigant the opportunity to correct the deficiencies of her
complaint unless it is clear those deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. See
Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Noll v.
Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir.1987). Since it is possible that Wright can amend her
complaint to allege sufficient facts suppmting subject matter jurisdiction by properly exhausting
her administrative remedies under the FTCA and thereby rebutting the factual dispute raised by
the United States, Wright's action against the United States is dismissed without prejudice.

III.

Claims Against Tuality Community Hospital Remanded to State Court

Wright's complaint contains no cause of action arising under, or that contains any
reference to, any federal statute or the Constitution. In consequence, this comt lacks federal
question jurisdiction over Wright's surviving medical malpractice claim against Tuality
Community Hospital. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, Wright is a citizen of Oregon and Tuality
Community Hospital is located in Washington County, Oregon. Complaint, #1-1,

~~

1, 3. Thus,

this comt does not have diversity jurisdiction over Wright's claims against Tuality Community
Hospital pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, this comt lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over Wright's claims.
As noted above, Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(h)(3) provides that "[i]fthe court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the comt must dismiss the action."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, 505 F.2d at 280.
The Ninth Circuit has made clear that the district comt may, in its discretion, remand or

Page 7 - OPINION AND ORDER

dismiss an action in which all federal claims have been withdrawn or dismissed. See, e.g.,
Destjino v. Reiswig, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2011) (the district court did not abuse its

discretion when it declined to remand a matter to state court after all federal claims had been
dismissed). While this matter has been pending in this Comi for a number of months, the United
States' erroneous deeming ofTuality as well as the fact that Wright brings this action prose lend
to a sound basis for remand of Wright's claims against Tuality. Fmther, Wright's claims against
Tutality involve only questions of state law.
Thus, I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Wright's remaining claims and I
must therefore determine whether to dismiss this action or to remand it to state court. Reliable
jurisprudence shows a preference for remand, rather than dismissal, in situations similar to those
in the instant case. See Carnegie-},;fellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 353 (1988) (favoring
remand as opposed to dismissal, as dismissal potentially increases both the expense and
inconvenience involved in enforcing state law due to repetitive filing requirements).
For all of these reasons, Wright's claims against Tuality Community Hospital are
remanded to state court.
CONCLUSION
Consistent with the foregoing, the United States' motion to dismiss (#8) is granted and
Wright's claims against the United States are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction in this comi under Rule 12(b)(! ).

I II
II I

Ill
Page 8 - OPINION AND ORDER

Additionally, Wright's remaining claims against Tuality Community Hospital are
remanded to state comt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 27th day of April, 2015.

( _)

p

~

t

=·"'--'';~

--'.'----+A.LllL-'(L_/:._l__JL__-".._<J--l--

Honot:able Paul Papak
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 9 - OPINION AND ORDER