Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05213/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05213-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Candace Cudworth
Defendant
Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant
Open Door Community Health Centers
Defendant
John Reichlin
Plaintiff
Renee Reichlin
Plaintiff
Theresa Reichlin
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EUREKA DIVISION

JOHN REICHLIN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEL NORTE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05213-NJV 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS BY 

DEFENDANT DEL NORTE COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Plaintiffs John Reichlin, Theresa Reichlin, and Renee Reichlin filed their complaint on 

November 24, 2014, naming as Defendants Del Norte County Department of Health and Human 

Services, Open Door Community Health Centers, Warren Rehwaldt, M.D., and Candace 

Cudworth. Defendant Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services

has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The court took the matter 

under submission on the papers, and for the reasons explained below, dismisses this action on 

other grounds.

Plaintiff's civil cover sheet indicates that the "Nature of the Suit" was "362. Personal 

Injury/Medical Malpractice." The same civil cover sheet, under "Cause of Action," states, 

"Several civil rights violated, care did not comply with professional standard." In their 

Complaint, Plaintiffs allege medical negligence claims against Defendants, arising out of the 

relationship between their mother, who died in May 2014, and Defendants. 

In their pro se Complaint filed November 25, 2014, Plaintiffs assert the existence of 

federal question subject matter jurisdiction. As response to the question, "[w]hich laws or rights 

Case 1:14-cv-05213-NJV Document 34 Filed 05/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

are involved?" on the form complaint, Plaintiffs list simply, "I, V, IX, X." It appears that Plaintiffs 

rely on the First, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to support 

their claim and to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the case. However, neither the United 

States Constitution nor Federal law supports a medical malpractice claim. None of the 

amendments cited by Plaintiffs confer any right to adequate healthcare. Medical malpractice 

claims are governed by state statutes and state common law. See Bui v. AT&T, 310 F.3d 1143, 

1147 (9th Cir. 2002) (attempt to invoke Federal jurisdiction under ERISA for a medical 

malpractice claim rejected; state law and regulation govern medical malpractice cases). 

Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to establish any basis for 

federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action as to Defendant Del Norte County Department 

of Health and Human Services. While Plaintiffs state in their opposition to the motion to dismiss 

that they believe that they have a viable claim and that there are unspecified violations of the 

Social Security [A]ct and federal codes and regulations, this court is powerless to grant leave to 

amend when, as here, it lacks jurisdiction over the original complaint. Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 

subject matter jurisdiction must exist at the time an action is commenced. Without such 

jurisdiction, the court has no power but to dismiss the action. Id. 

In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Candace Cudworth is a state employee. 

Complaint, Para. 5b. The court therefore must conclude that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Cudworth for the same reasons described above.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as to Defendant Del Norte County 

Department of Health and Human Services and as to Defendant Candace Cudworth for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

2. Defendant Del Norte County Department of Health and Human Services' motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P 12(b)(6) is DENIED as moot.

Case 1:14-cv-05213-NJV Document 34 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-05213-NJV Document 34 Filed 05/12/15 Page 3 of 3