T hi s O r derand Judgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * d o c tr in e s o f

la w o f th e c a s e , re s ju d ica ta , and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ithF e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge panelhas det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t.

B ecaus e M s . Sophocl eous i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, w e r evi ew her 1 p le a d in g s a n d filin g s lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Kerner , 404 U . S. 519, 520- 21 (1 9 7 2 ); How ard v. U. S. B ur eau of P r is ons , 4 8 7 F . 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 12, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT TO N Y A SO PH O CL EO U S, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. L AWRE NC E M E M OR I AL HO SP I TAL, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 3147 ( D. C. No . 0 7 - CV- 4 0 2 9 - RDR)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antT ony a Sophocl eous , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om the di s m i s s al of herm edi calm al pr act i ce c l ai m s bythe D i s tr i ctC ourtforthe D i s tr i ct of K ansas. W e hav e j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. C on strui ng M s. S o p h o c leo u s’s fili n g s lib e ra lly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tly 1-2-

di s m i s s ed hercl ai m s forl ack of s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and fa i l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m forw hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. A ccor di ngl y , w e AF F I RM the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s o rd e r o f

d ism iss a l. I . BA CKGROUND M s . Sophocl eous al l eges thaton February9, 2007, s he w entt o the emer gencyr oom atL aw r ence M emori al H os pi t al and w as di agnos ed w i th a s t om ach f

l u. She r eturned the nextday“i n a gr eatamountof pai n” and w as di agnos ed w i th an ovar i an cy s t . R . , D oc. 1, at3. She s ued form edi cal m al pr act i ce, s eeki ng damages of $150 bi l l i on and a c ourtor dert o for ce the hos pi t al t o tr eather . T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed forl ack of s ubj ectm att er j uri sdi ct i on and for fai l ure t o st at e a cl ai m for w hich r el i ef co uld be granted. M s. S o p h o c leo u s tim e lyfiled a n o tice o f ap p e a l. I I . DI S CU S S I ON W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f a m o tio n to d is m is s d e n o v o . Johns on ex r el. Es tate of C ano v. Holm es , 4 5 5 F .3 d 1 1 3 3 , 1 1 3 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). M s . S o p h o c le o u s b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f w h e n in v o k in g fe d e ra l ju ri s d ic tio n . Mar cus v. Kans as D ep’ tof R eve nue , 1 7 0 F .3 d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 9 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). D i versi tyj uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2 is un avail able because M s. S o p h o c le o u s a c k n o w le d g e s th a t b o th s h e a n d th e h o s p ita l a re c itiz e n s o f K a n s a s . Feder al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331 depends on a r i ghtof ac t i on unders om e fe der al l aw . N o fede r al l aw w as m ent i oned i n the compl ai nt , andT h e d istric t co u rt fo u n d th a t d ism iss a l o f M s. S o p h o c leo u s’s sta te 2 l aw cl ai m s al s o w as appr opr i at e bec aus e s he fa i l ed t o compl yw i th the not i ce re q u ir e m e n t o f

K a n s a s S ta tu te s A n n o ta te d § 1 2 -1 0 5 b (d ). See g e n e ra llyK a n . S tat. A n n . § 1 2 -1 0 5 b (d ) (“ N o p e rso n m a yin iti a te a n a c tio n a g a in st a m u n icip a lity u n l e s s th e c l a i m h a s b e e n d e n i e d i n wh o l e o rp a rt[ a f t e rn o t i c e i s fi l e d ] . ” ) On ap p ea l, itis no t cl ea r w h ethe r M s. S o p h o cleo u s ch all en g es th is distri ct co u rt (c o n tin u e d ...) -3- th o se m e n tio n e d b e fo re th e d istric t co u rt a n d o n ap p e a l d o n o t p ro v id e fo r rig h ts o f a c tio n in th is s itu a tio n . M s . Sophocl eous r el i es pr i m ar i l yon the Em er gencyM edi calT r eatm entand A ct i ve LaborA ct( “EM T A L A ”) , 42 U . S. C . § 1395dd, w hi ch i s “nei thera fe der al m al pr act i ce nora negl i gence s t atut e. ” Scot tv. Hutchi ns on Hos p. , 959 F. Supp. 1351, 1357 ( D . K an. 1997) . H eral l egat i ons do nots upportcl ai m s thatw oul d be cogni zabl e underE M T A L A , s uch as “fa i l i ng t o conductan appr opr i at e medi cal s cr eeni ng” or“fa i l i ng t o furtherexami ne and tr eata per s on w hom the hos pi t al has det erm i ned has an emer gencym edi calcondi t i on. ” Id. M s . Sophocl eous ’ s uns upport ed ci t at i on of the Fi fth A m endmentforthe fir s t tim e o n a p p e a l w ill n o t c re a te a fe d e ra l q u e s tio n h e re . See Cum m i ngs v. Nor ton , 393 F. 3d 1186, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( not i ng the “ge ner al rul e thati s s ues notr ai s ed bel ow ar e w ai ved on appe al ”) . A nd w hi l e 28 U . S. C . § 1343 pr ovi des ju risd ictio n o v e r c iv il righ ts c laim s, M s. S o p h o c leo u s h a s n o t alle g e d a n yfa c ts thatw oul d gi ve r i s e t o a l egal l y - cogni zabl e ci vi l r i ght s vi ol at i on. T her efor e, the d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yd ism issed thes e c lai m s fo r l ac ko f ju ri sd ict ion an d fa il u re t o s t at e a c l ai m forw hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed. 2( . . . cont i nued) 2 ru lin g . In d e e d , M s. S o p h o c leo u s a ss e rts th a t th e d istric t co u rt “ e rre d ” in m is in te rp re tin g h e r c o m p la in t a s b e in g fo u n d e d o n s ta te la w c la im s . See A p lt . B r. at 2. In a n yev en t, w e n ee d n o t r ea ch this i ssu e b ec au se, ev en if n o ti ce w ere pr oper l ygi ven, the di s tr i ctcourtw oul d have be en w i thoutj ur i s di ct i on t o hearany o f M s . S o p h o c le o u s ’s s ta te la w c la im s . -4-

A ccor di ngl yw e A F F I R M the d i stri ctcou rt ’s order di sm i ssi ng M s. S o p h o c leo u s’s c o m p lain t. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge