Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06071-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK LUCKEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE NAVY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06071-HSG 

ORDER DISMISSING THE CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 33, 34

Plaintiffs Derrick Luckey and Annette Luckey, proceeding pro se, filed this action against 

the United States and the United States Department of the Navy, based on facts arising from the 

death of their daughter, Danyelle A. Luckey. Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.”). Danyelle A. Luckey was a 

Personnel Assistant in the Navy who passed away onboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, allegedly 

due to Defendants’ failure to treat her. Id. ¶¶ 6–8. 

Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay pending Congress’s passage or rejection of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (“NDAA 2020”). Dkt. No. 23. The NDAA 2020 

incorporated the Sergeant First Class Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act of 

2019 (“Stayskal Legislation”), which if passed would allow military servicemembers to sue the 

government for instances of medical malpractice. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion on August 

28, 2019. Dkt. No. 28.

On January 9, 2020, the parties filed status reports informing the Court that Congress 

passed and signed NDAA 2020 into law. Dkt. Nos. 33, 34. In light of NDAA 2020’s passage, 

Plaintiffs request that the Court voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice, so that Plaintiffs 

can file an administrative claim with the Secretary of the Department of Defense for the alleged 

wrongful death of their daughter. Dkt. No. 33. 

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 35 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants request that the case “simply be ‘dismissed’” even though Plaintiffs request 

“dismissal ‘without prejudice.’” Dkt. No. 34 at 2. According to Defendants, the Stayskal 

Legislation provides for a “strictly administrative claim that may be made to the relevant agency,” 

and does not allow “any review of the administrative claim process by any court, or any appeal to 

any court.” Id. Defendants thus assert that “the case at bar[ ] has been, and now still remains, 

within the subject matter jurisdiction bar of the Feres doctrine.” Id. (citing Feres v. United States, 

340 U.S. 135 (1950)). But consistent with its previous ruling, see Dkt. No. 28 at 3 n.1, the Court 

need not at this stage reach any conclusions about how Feres might eventually apply to Plaintiffs’ 

claims if reasserted, including whether the Court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case 

and action due to the continued application of Feres.” See Dkt. No. 32 at 2. Defendants may raise 

this argument if and when Plaintiffs need to return to court to seek judicial relief.

Accordingly, the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed 

to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/13/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-06071-HSG Document 35 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 2