Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01742/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01742-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDE MICHAEL MITCHELL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

GOLDEN VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, )

et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-1742 OWW/DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTION TO DISMISS OR FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Docs. 3 &

10), VACATING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE FOR LACK OF

PROSECUTION AS MOOT (Docs.

12 & 13), DISMISSING ACTION

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION, AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Claude Michael Mitchell, proceeding in pro per,

filed a Complaint in the Merced County Superior Court on April

11, 2006. Defendants are Golden Valley Medical Center and Dr.

Melhem Dandan. The Complaint is for personal injury based on

medical malpractice, causing physical suffering and severe nerve

damage. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is required to

comply with a claims statute and has so complied. 

On December 1, 2006, the United States removed the action to

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 1 of 8
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

2

this court "pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a) and 2679(d), by

operation of the Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance

Act of 1992 (FFHCAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. § 233), for all acts

or omissions that occurred after June 23, 1996, the date that the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services deemed that the

defendant health clinic was deemed covered by 42 U.S.C. § 233." 

Attached to the Notice of Removal is the Declaration of David T.

Shelledy, Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief, Defensive Civil

Litigation, of the United States Attorney's Office for the

Eastern District of California, who avers in pertinent part:

2. On the basis of the information now

available with respect to the incidents

referred to in the complaint, attachments,

and amendments thereto, the ... Federal

Defendants are entitled to the official

immunity of the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28

U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680, esp. § 2679, pursuant to

the provisions of the Federally Supported

Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992, 42

U.S.C. § 233. These Federal Defendants are

deemed eligible by operation of law for the

official immunity of employees of the United

States acting within the scope of their

employment, at the time of the alleged

incidents giving rise to the complaint.

This certification, by operation of the civil

statutes, effects the substitution of the

United States as the proper party defendant

in lieu of the Federal Defendants, who should

be dismissed pursuant to their official

immunity.

The United States moves to dismiss this action or for

summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

This motion initially was noticed for hearing on March 19,

2007. Plaintiff did not file a written opposition pursuant to

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 2 of 8
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

3

Rule 78-230(c), Local Rules of Practice and did not appear at the

hearing. The United States withdrew the motion at the March 19,

2007 hearing because of a concern that the address on file for

Plaintiff was incorrect and that Plaintiff might not have been

properly served with the motion. After ascertaining that

Plaintiff’s address was correct, the United States refiled the

motion on March 19, 2007, noticing the motion for hearing on

April 23, 2007. Plaintiff has not filed a written opposition to

the motion. Plaintiff did not appear at the scheduling

conference on April 5, 2007. On April 11 and 13, 2007, an Order

to Plaintiff to show cause on April 23, 2007 why this action

should not be dismissed for failure to prosecution was filed. 

AUSA Kapetan avers that she received a fax on April 11, 2007 from

the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the

General Counsel, attaching documents purportedly from Plaintiff. 

Attached is a document filed on April 7, 2007 in the Merced

County Superior Court entitled “Motion for Objections to Vacate

Judgment”. Although filed in the Merced County Superior Court,

the pleading sets forth as the case number: “CASE NO. CIV-F-06-

1742 OWW/NEW”. In this pleading, Plaintiff asserts:

I would like to explain to the courts my

reasons for not replying in regards to the

respondents Motions to dismiss. The

respondent or respondents have failed to

answer numerous attempts to keep this Motion

moving forward by replying to the Plaintiff

and making an attempt to regard the

Plaintiffs Motions were as the defendant has

been cited by the Settlement Conference Case

Management Courts for not complying with the

Courts rules to attempt to compromise with

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 3 of 8
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

4

the other party so that It may be possible to

move the case In question In a forward motion

in which the settlement conference file

notes, stating if defendants misses one more

Settlement Conference both telephonic or by

their personal appearance the defendants have

caused the Plaintiff to lose out on his

rights to see a personal physician and his

rights to obtain any documents required for

the Plaintiff to move this case in a forward

motion none of these documents or document

file numbers were given which made my attempt

to communicate with the torts commission all

together when finally I did get in touch with

the torts commission they ignored my Motions

for information needed to continue my case

with needed documents and document numbers

causing the Plaintiff to still lose on his

rights to see a private physician but

continued to speak of early settlement

Plaintiffs have refused to go along with any

of the courts orders which caused the

Plaintiff to file a Motion for Default and

Default Judgment which was denied for reasons

unknown so now I ask the courts to reconsider

that filed motion and grant my appeal so that

I may continue to fight my motion for

negligence of Ivan Dr. Melhan Dandan and

Golden Valley Medical Center my condition at

this time seems to be getting worse.

Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on April 23, 2007.

“In ruling on a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction,

the district court is ordinarily free to hear evidence regarding

jurisdiction and to rule on that issue prior to trial, resolving

factual disputes where necessary. In such circumstances, no

presumptive truthfulness attaches to the plaintiff’s allegations,

and the existence of disputed material facts will not preclude

the district court from evaluating for itself the merits of the

jurisdictional claims. Augustine v. United States, 704 F.2d

1074, 1077 (9 Cir.1983) th

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 4 of 8
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

5

42 U.S.C. § 233(g) provides that the Secretary of Health and

Human Services may deem an entity and an employee of an entity to

be an employee of the U.S. Public Health Service. Once such

determination is made, “the determination shall be final and

binding upon the Secretary and the Attorney General and other

parties to any civil action or proceeding.” 42 U.S.C. §

233(g)(1)(F). Pursuant to Section 233(g)(1)(A), the remedy

against such a deemed entity and employee of such entity “shall

be exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding to the same

extent as the remedy against the United States is exclusive

pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.” Section 233(a)

provides:

The remedy against the United States provided

by section 1346(b) and 2672 of Title 28 ...

for damage for personal injury ... resulting

from the performance of medical, surgical,

dental or related functions, including the

conduct of clinical studies or investigation,

by an commissioned officer or employee of the

Public Health Service while acting within the

scope of his office or employment, shall be

exclusive of any other civil action or

proceeding by reason of the same subjectmatter against the officer or employee ...

whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1) provides for exclusive jurisdiction in the

district courts “of civil actions on claims against the United

States ... for money damages ... for ... personal injury ...

caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any

employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his

office or employment, under circumstances where the United

States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 5 of 8
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

6

accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission

occurred.” In enacting Section 233(g), Congress protected

deemed officers and employees of the Public Health Service from

personal liability for the negligent or wrongful act or omission

while acting within the scope of their employment by providing

that the United States may assume such liability pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2672 of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). See El Rio

Santa Cruz Neigh. v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 396

F.3d 1265, 1267 (D.C.Cir.2005). The FTCA requires that a

claimant exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a

complaint against the United States. Courts lack subject matter

jurisdiction and must dismiss an FTCA action which is instituted

before the administrative remedies are exhausted. McNeil v.

United States, 508 U.S. 106 (1993). Because this requirement is

jurisdictional, it cannot be waived. Celestine v. Mount Vernon

Health Center, 403 F.3d 76, 82 (2 Cir.2005). This requirement nd

extends to all suits, including those begun in state court. Id. 

28 U.S.C. § 2675 provides:

An action shall not be instituted upon a

claim against the United States for money

damages for ... personal injury ... caused by

the negligent or wrongful act or omission of

any employee of the Government ... 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 certified or

registered mail.

Here, although the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has

exhausted all applicable administrative remedies, the United

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 6 of 8
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

7

States submits the Declaration of Beverly R. Dart, Attorney in

Charge in the Claims and Employment Law Branch, General Law

Division, Office of the General Counsel, United States Department

of Health and Human Services. Ms. Dart avers in pertinent part:

1. ... I am familiar with administrative

claims filed against the agency pursuant to

the ... FTCA ..., including claims presented

pursuant to the FTCA involving allegations

against community health centers which have

been deemed employees of the federal

government under the Federally Supported

Health Centers Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C §

233(g)-(n).

2. I am also familiar with the official

records of administrative tort claims

maintained by the Department, as well as the

system by which those records are maintained.

3. The Claims and Employment Law Branch has

a Claims Office that maintains in a

computerized database a record of all

administrative tort claims filed with the

Department.

4. As a consequence, if a tort claim has

been filed with the Department with respect

to an administrative claim by Claude M.

Mitchell, a record of that filing would be

maintained in the Claims Office’s database.

5. I caused a search of the Claims Office

database to be conducted and found a single

record of an administrative claim filed by

Claude M. Mitchell, which was presented to

the agency on June 5, 2006 ... To the best of

my knowledge, no other claims have bene

presented to the agency by Claude M.

Mitchell.

Plaintiff cannot amend his complaint to allege compliance

with the FTCA if and when the tort claim is denied. Sparrow v.

U.S. Postal Service, 825 F.Supp. 252, 255 (E.D.Cal.1993). Here,

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on April 11, 2006. 

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 7 of 8
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

8

Consequently, there is no subject matter jurisdiction over

this action.

In apparent response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause

issued for Plaintiff’s failure to respond in the case, on April

4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a number of documents in the Superior

Court of California, County of Merced, listing the federal case

number. These papers are unavailing.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

1. The orders to show cause are vacated as moot.

2. The United States’ motion to dismiss or for summary

judgment is GRANTED.

3. The action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter JUDGMENT FOR

DEFENDANTS.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01742-OWW -LJO Document 16 Filed 04/25/07 Page 8 of 8