Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00583/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00583-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RHONDA WILKERSON, CASE NO. CV-F-05-0583 REC LJO

 

Plaintiff, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S F.R.Civ.P.

12(b)(1) AND (b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

vs. (Docs. 15, 16.)

ROBERT BUTLER,

Defendant.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this medical malpractice action, defendant Robert J. Butler, M.D. (“Dr. Butler”), seeks to

dismiss the amended complaint of pro se plaintiff Rhonda Wilkerson (“Ms. Wilkerson”) on grounds that

it fails to state a claim to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Wilkerson filed no timely

opposition papers. This Court considered Dr. Butler’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss

on the record and without the September 16, 2005 hearing, pursuant to this Court’s Local Rule 78-320(c)

and (h). For the reasons discussed below, this Court GRANTS Dr. Butler’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and

(b)(6) motion to dismiss Ms. Wilkerson’s amended complaint without leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2005, Ms. Wilkerson filed her original complaint to allege a medical malpractice

cause of action that Dr. Butler negligently diagnosed her skin cancer as psoriasis. The original complaint

included five other causes of action to allege emotional distress and violations concerning medical

Case 1:05-cv-00583-NEW Document 18 Filed 09/12/05 Page 1 of 5
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

omissions and falsification. This Court’s June 30, 2005 order dismissed Ms. Wilkerson’s original

complaint for failure to allege grounds for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, struck five causes of

action as redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous, pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 12(f), and granted

Ms. Wilkerson leave to amend as to her remaining medical malpractice cause of action to attempt to cure

jurisdiction deficiencies.

On July 19, 2005, Ms. Wilkerson filed her amended complaint to allege again that Dr. Butler

“wrongfully diagnosed plaintiff with psoriasis.” The amended complaint notes that Dr. Butler “was a

resident” of California and practiced medicine and treated Ms. Wilkerson in California at the time of his

alleged malpractice. In an apparent attempt to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the

amended complaint references: (1) sections of 42 C.F.R., Part 1001, Subchapter B, which addresses

Medicare and state health care programs; and (2) the Consumer Bill of Rights and Responsibilities

drafted by the President’s Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care

Industry (“Consumer Bill of Rights”).

On August 4, 2005, Dr. Butler filed his F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss Ms.

Wilkerson’s amended complaint on grounds that it fails to state a claim to invoke this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. 

DISCUSSION

Lack Of Jurisdiction

F.R.Civ.P. 8 establishes general pleading rules and provides in pertinent part:

(a) Claims for Relief. A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief . . . shall

contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction

depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds

of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks.

. . .

(e) Pleading to be Concise and Direct; Consistency. 

(1) Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise and direct.

This Court’s Local Rule 8-204 addresses allegations of jurisdiction and provides:

When an affirmative allegation of jurisdiction is required pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

Case 1:05-cv-00583-NEW Document 18 Filed 09/12/05 Page 2 of 5
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 A defendant may also attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction apart from the pleadings.

Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891. In such a case, a court may rely on evidence extrinsic to the pleadings and resolve factual

disputes relating to jurisdiction. St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880 F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 993, 110 S.Ct.

541 (1989); Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir. 1987); Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d 1074, 1077

(9th Cir. 1983). In this case, Dr. Butler’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a facial challenge to the

complaint, and the Court did not review or rely on extrinsic evidence.

3

P. 8(a)(1), it (i ) shall appear as the first allegation of any complaint . . . , (ii) shall be

styled “Jurisdiction,” (iii) shall state the claimed statutory or other basis of federal

jurisdiction, and (iv) shall state the facts supporting such jurisdictional claim.

Dr. Butler contends the amended complaint should be dismissed under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) in

that it fails to establish this Court’s jurisdiction. Fundamentally, federal courts are courts of limited

jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 341 (1994). Limits on

federal jurisdiction must neither be disregarded nor evaded. Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger,

437 U.S. 365, 374, 98 S.Ct. 2396 (1978). A plaintiff bears the burden to establish that subject matter

jurisdiction is proper. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396. This burden, at the pleading stage,

must be met by pleading sufficient allegations to show a proper basis for the court to assert subject

matter jurisdiction over an action. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56

S.Ct. 780 (1936); F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). When a defendant challenges jurisdiction “facially,” all material

allegations in the complaint are assumed true, and the question for the court is whether the lack of

federal jurisdiction appears from the face of the pleading. Thornhill Publishing Co. v. General

Telephone Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1979); Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,

549 F.2d 884, 891 (3rd Cir. 1977); Cervantez v. Sullivan, 719 F.Supp. 899, 903 (E.D. Cal. 1989), rev’d

on other grounds, 963 F.2d 229 (9th Cir. 1992).1

Dr. Butler correctly notes that the amended complaint fails to establish diversity of citizenship

(28 U.S.C. § 1332) in that it alleges the California residency of Dr. Butler and Ms. Wilkerson at times

giving rise to its allegations. The amended complaint also fails to allege a controversy exceeding

$75,000 to invoke diversity jurisdiction.

Dr. Butler further correctly points out that the amended complaint’s medical malpractice claim

does not invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331). The amended complaint’s

references to sections of 42 C.F.R., Part 1001, Subchapter B are unavailing. The regulations in 42

C.F.R., Part 1001 “specify certain bases upon which individuals and entities may, or in some cases must,

Case 1:05-cv-00583-NEW Document 18 Filed 09/12/05 Page 3 of 5
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

4

be excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs.” 42

C.F.R. § 1001.1(a). The regulations “are applicable to and binding on the Office of Inspector General

(OIG) in imposing and proposing exclusions, as well as to Administrative Law Judges (ALJs), the

Departmental Appeals Board (DAB), and federal courts in reviewing the imposition of exclusions by

the OIG (and, where applicable, in imposing exclusions proposed by the OIG).”

The amended complaint’s reference to 42 C.F.R. § 1001.701 fails to invoke subject matter

jurisdiction for Ms. Wilkerson’s private medical malpractice cause of action in that the regulation

empowers the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) to exclude excessive claims. The same goes for the

amended complaint’s reference to 42 C.F.R. § 1003.101 which addresses definitions for regulations on

civil penalties for Medicaid and Medicare violations. Generally, federal agency rules and regulations

are not entitled to the force and effect of a “law of the United States” to confer federal subject matter

jurisdiction on a state law claim. See United States v. 53 Eclectus Parrots, 685 F.2d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.

1982) (U.S. Customs Service Manual not entitled to force and effect of U.S. law); United States v.

Harvey, 659 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir. 1981) (same as to Veterans Administration Manual). The regulations

cited in the amended complaint offer Ms. Wilkerson no private right of action. The amended complaint

states no cognizable cause of action under the regulations. This Court cannot disregard or evade limits

on its jurisdiction and permit Ms. Wilkerson to convert a state medical malpractice cause of action into

a federal question claim by reference to federal regulations touching on medical practice.

The amended complaint appears to allege Dr. Butler violated the Consumer Bill of Rights to

attempt to bolster Ms. Wilkerson’s medical malpractice cause of action. Dr. Butler correctly notes that

as a publication prepared by a Presidential Advisory Committee, the Consumer Bill of Rights is not a

federal law to support federal question jurisdiction. The amended complaint renews allegations

regarding Dr. Butler’s communication of pathology results and which this Court struck with its June 30,

2005 order. The amended complaint alleges neither violation of a federal right or law under the

Consumer Bill of Rights nor a cognizable claim under the Consumer Bill of Rights.

In sum, Ms. Wilkerson pursues a private, state law medical malpractice cause of action for which

she has failed to establish this Court’s jurisdiction based merely on receipt of federal health care funding

by Dr. Butler’s medical practice and its subjection to federal health laws. 

Case 1:05-cv-00583-NEW Document 18 Filed 09/12/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons discussed above, this Court:

1. GRANTS Dr. Butler’s F.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) motion to dismiss Ms. Wilkerson’s

amended complaint without leave to amend; and

2. DIRECTS this Court’s clerk to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00583-NEW Document 18 Filed 09/12/05 Page 5 of 5