Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01807/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01807-0/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

27

28

- 1 - 11cv1807

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNA STOCKWELL,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11cv1807-LAB (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING UNITED

STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS;

AND

ORDER OF REMAND

vs.

UNITED STATES, et al.,

Defendants.

This case was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San

Diego, then removed to this Court on August 12, 2011. Although the case brings medical

malpractice claims over which this Court ordinarily would lack jurisdiction, claims against two

Defendants, Vista Community Clinic (“VCC”) and Dr. Michael MacMurray, arise under federal

law. Because the VCC is federally-funded, it falls under the Federally Supported Health

Centers Assistance Act of 1992 and is subject to the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 233. Under the Public Health Service Act, Dr. Michael MacMurray is likewise deemed a

federal employee. Claims originally brought against VCC and MacMurray therefore arise

under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), though claims against other Defendants arise

under state law. Because neither VCC nor MacMurray is a proper Defendant, and the United

was substituted as Defendant in their place. (Docket no. 2.)

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-01807-LAB-WMC Document 12 Filed 03/07/12 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 - 11cv1807

Under the FTCA, a Plaintiff is required to exhaust her claims administratively before

filing suit. Plaintiff Donna Stockwell, however, did not begin to exhaust her administrative

remedies until shortly before this action was removed. The United States therefore moved

to dismiss the claims she brought against it (originally brought against VCC and MacMurray)

for failure to exhaust.

Stockwell filed her opposition, argued she had exhausted her administrative remedies,

and cites the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq., which she says provides a procedure

for a claimant to follow if she initially files her FTCA claim in the wrong forum. In particular,

she cites 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(5). This section, however, deals with statutes of limitations,

and extends the limitations period. In particular, it provides that when a case where the

United States was substituted as the party defendant is dismissed for failure to exhaust,

such a claim will be deemed timely presented if it would have been timely on the date the

underlying civil action was filed, provided that the claim is presented to the appropriate

federal agency within sixty days after the civil action is dismissed. In other words, this section

does contemplates that the civil action will be dismissed for failure to exhaust, but provides

some relief to a plaintiff under those circumstances. It does not provide, as Stockwell argues,

that non-exhaustion is excused. Nor does it provide that merely filing the claim constitutes

exhaustion. 

Because Stockwell did not exhaust her claims before filing suit, her claims against the

United States are barred, at least in this action as it now stands. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).

See also Benoit v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 608 F.3d 17, 20–21 (D.C. Cir., 2010) (holding

that suits for damages against the U.S. are barred by sovereign immunity unless the

claimant exhausts administrative remedies before filing suit). Dismissal of these claims is

therefore required.

Stockwell goes on to contend that, if the United Sates are dismissed because of nonexhaustion, the action should be remanded. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and (c), the Court

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims if, as here, it has

dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction. Where, as here, dismissal occurs

Case 3:11-cv-01807-LAB-WMC Document 12 Filed 03/07/12 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 - 11cv1807

before trial, declining to exercise jurisdiction is generally appropriate. See Gini v. Las Vegas

Metro. Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9 Cir. 1994). This case falls within that general th

rule.

Claims against the United States (originally brought against VCC and MacMurray) are

therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust administrative remedies

before filing suit. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining

state-law claims. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT and all pending dates are

VACATED. This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of

San Diego from which it was removed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 7, 2012

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01807-LAB-WMC Document 12 Filed 03/07/12 Page 3 of 3