Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00563/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00563-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESLEY ELVIS PEDEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIYANOOSH POURMONSHI, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-0563-KJM-KJN PS

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 28, 2016, the court granted plaintiff Wesley Elvis Peden’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (ECF No. 3.) The court 

noted that plaintiff’s complaint, when liberally construed, appears to raise some type of medical 

malpractice claim against the defendants Sacramento Native American Health Center, a federally 

qualified health center, and one of its providers, Dr. Kiyanoosh Pourmonshi. (Id.) However, for 

the reasons discussed in that order, the court concluded that plaintiff would first have to allege 

facts showing that he satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of exhausting his administrative 

remedies before bringing a Federal Tort Claims Act claim in this court. (Id.) The court observed 

that it seemed highly unlikely that plaintiff had already exhausted his administrative remedies for 

any FTCA claim through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, but that the court 

could not definitively make that determination on the limited record. (Id.) As such, the court 

dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. (Id.)

Case 2:16-cv-00563-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 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

The court instructed plaintiff as follows: 

If plaintiff has already filed an administrative tort claim with the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which has been

finally denied, plaintiff shall so allege in any first amended 

complaint and attach a copy of his administrative tort claim and any 

denial letter to that first amended complaint. The first amended 

complaint shall be captioned “First Amended Complaint,” shall 

only assert a FTCA claim against the United States, and shall be 

filed in 28 days. 

However, if plaintiff has not yet filed an administrative tort claim 

with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, he shall 

instead file with this court, within 28 days, a notice of voluntary 

dismissal of this action, without prejudice to its refiling at a later 

juncture. An action against the United States under the FTCA may 

be refiled after plaintiff has appropriately exhausted administrative 

remedies with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Failure to file either a first amended complaint or a notice of 

voluntary dismissal within 28 days shall be deemed to be plaintiff’s 

consent to dismissal of the action without prejudice for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

(ECF No. 3.) Although the applicable deadline has now passed, plaintiff failed to file either a 

first amended complaint or a notice of voluntary dismissal. In accordance with the court’s 

cautionary instruction, the court construes such failure as plaintiff’s consent to dismissal of the 

action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is appropriate on the record 

here. Plaintiff may refile this action once he has properly exhausted administrative remedies. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. The action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 

objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 

Case 2:16-cv-00563-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 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

Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

Dated: May 2, 2016

 

Case 2:16-cv-00563-KJM-KJN Document 4 Filed 05/03/16 Page 3 of 3