Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01254/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-01254-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 362
Nature of Suit: Medical Malpractice
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 10CV1254

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVESTER WAYNE WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10CV1254-LAB (NLS)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS, JULIE LAVERDIERE,

MERCEDES DASHEFSKY, MARIPAT

CORR,

Defendants.

On August 6, 2010, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. Plaintiff Sylvester Williams did not file a timely opposition, so on

September 27, the Court issued an order (“Order Requiring Opposition”) vacating the

upcoming hearing and ordering Williams to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The

same day the Court by discrepancy order rejected Williams’ attempted filing of a document

styled “Evidence to Support Motion by Civilian Plaintiff” and attaching dozens of pages of

documents Plaintiff wished the Court to receive as evidence.

In its Order Requiring Opposition, the Court told Williams it could not and would not

attempt to read through his evidence and create arguments for him, and ordered him to file

an opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than the close of business on Monday,

/ / /

Case 3:10-cv-01254-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/20/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 10CV1254

October 18, 2010. The order specifically warned Williams if he didn’t do so, his complaint

would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 

Instead of obeying the Court’s order, Williams again submitted documentary evidence

with the Court, attaching it to a document styled “Motion to Continue Plaintiff’s Complaint.”

This document used “continue” to mean “continue adjudicating,” and urged the Court to

move faster. It did not request an extension of time. Because Williams didn’t attempt to file

any opposition, this was accepted as his opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

The “Motion to Continue Plaintiff’s Complaint” consists of two pages complaining of

delays in adjudication, and attaches multiple exhibits. The “notice” itself contains no

arguments opposing the motion to dismiss. Because Williams didn’t adequately oppose the

motion to dismiss, this action will be dismissed as discussed in the Court’s Order Requiring

Opposition.

As the Court noted in its Order Requiring Opposition, it cannot create Williams’

arguments for him. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the exhibits to confirm that he

could not adequately oppose the motion to dismiss if given a third opportunity. Most of these

are medical records attempting to substantiate Williams’ claims that he is suffering from

health problems, and have no bearing on whether his claims were administratively

exhausted.

The only exhibit relating in any way to administrative exhaustion is a document from

the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding Williams’ disability rating. It denies his new

claim for benefits, finding no connection between his military service and multiple myeloma,

non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma, spina bifida, and soft tissue sarcoma. But in this case Williams

isn’t complaining about this benefits decision. Rather, he is suing Defendants for medical

malpractice, alleging “Doctors knew of my high glucose/diabetes and did not inform me of

it or treat it, which led to a life threatening situation.” In short, Williams has neither argued

no provided documents suggesting he exhausted his claims.

As the motion to dismiss points out, the Federal Tort Claims Act provides a limited

waiver of sovereign immunity that allows a party to sue the United States, and its employees

Case 3:10-cv-01254-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/20/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 10CV1254

acting within the scope of their employment, for certain common law torts. See United

States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160, 163 and n.3 (1991). The Court’s jurisdiction to entertain such

claims is limited by the terms of the FTCA. Warren v. U.S.Dep’t of Interior, 724 F.2d 776,

777–78 (9th Cir. 1984). One of the FTCA’s requirements is that a prospective claimant must

file an administrative claim with the agency whose employees allegedly injured the claimant.

28 U.S.C. § 2675; Johnson v. United States, 704 F.2d 1431, 1442 (9th Cir. 1983)

(“Exhaustion of the claims procedures established under the Act is a prerequisite to district

court jurisdiction.”) 

As the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, Williams bears the burden of pleading

facts to support the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. McNutt v. Gen’l Motors Acceptance

Corp. of Indiana, 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936). Because he did not do this even when ordered

to do so, and has not shown he could do so even if given another opportunity, the motion

to dismiss is GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 20, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-01254-LAB-NLS Document 13 Filed 10/20/10 Page 3 of 3