Court Opinion

ID: 9369529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 01:00:22.8339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:15.723192
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30429        Document: 00516639459             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/08/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                   Fifth Circuit

                                                                                 FILED
                                                                          February 8, 2023
                                       No. 22-30429
                                                                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                 Clerk

   Charles Jenkins,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   TriWest Healthcare Alliance,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellee.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 2:22-CV-37

   Before Smith, Clement, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
         Charles Jenkins appeals the dismissal of his suit for medical malprac-
   tice. We affirm.

                                                  I.
         On January 9, 2020, Jenkins sued pro se in federal district court. He
   alleged that three doctors, the “VA Medical Center,” “Tulane Medical Cen-
   ter,” and “Triwest Healthcare Alliance” had “engaged and/or participated

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30429      Document: 00516639459           Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                    No. 22-30429

   in un-necessary [sic] surgical-negligence medical malpractice . . . .” He
   stated, “[t]he surgeon was experimenting,” and he asked for “punitive dam-
   ages because the surgeon did not have clearance to perform.” Jenkins
   asserted federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Torts Claims Act
   (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq.
          Defendants TriWest Healthcare Alliance (“TriWest”) and Univer-
   sity Healthcare System, L.C., d/b/a/ Tulane University Hospital & Clinic
   (“TUHC”), moved to dismiss, alleging, among other things, failure to state
   a claim, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the claims were time-
   barred. The district court dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
   matter jurisdiction.

                                              II.
          Dismissals under Rule 12(b)(1) are reviewed de novo. See JTB Tools &
   Oilfield Servs., L.L.C. v. United States, 831 F.3d 597, 599 (5th Cir. 2016).
   “The burden of proof . . . is on the party asserting jurisdiction.” Ramming v.
   United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001). The standard of review is
   similar to that of Rule 12(b)(6) but allows the court “to consider a broader
   range of materials,” such as “undisputed facts in the record” or “the court’s
   resolution of disputed facts.” Williams v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360, 365 n.2 (5th
   Cir. 2008) (quoting another source). A court should dismiss for lack of sub-
   ject matter jurisdiction only when “it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot
   prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle plaintiff to
   relief.” Ramming, 281 F.3d at 161.
          We may affirm for any reason supported by the record, even if not
   relied on by the district court. United States v. Grosz, 76 F.3d 1318, 1324 n.6
   (5th Cir. 1996). We cannot consider arguments not presented to the district
   court. Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300, 1307 (5th Cir. 1988);
   Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1071 n.1 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

                                          2
Case: 22-30429        Document: 00516639459          Page: 3   Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                    No. 22-30429

                                              III.
          The district court held that Jenkins had not established subject matter
   jurisdiction because he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, a
   jurisdictional prerequisite for an FTCA claim. The FTCA is a limited waiver
   of sovereign immunity that allows a suit against the United States only when
   the plaintiff has “first exhausted his administrative remedies.” McNeil v.
   United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107 (1993). That exhaustion is a “jurisdictional
   prerequisite for FTCA claims that cannot be waived.” Coleman v. United
   States, 912 F.3d 824, 834 (5th Cir. 2019). For exhaustion, the plaintiff must
   have “presented the claim to the appropriate Federal agency,” and the
   agency must have denied the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). If a plaintiff cannot
   show exhaustion, he has not pleaded a federal question. See Coleman,
   912 F.3d at 834.
          None of Jenkins’s filings alleged that he had exhausted his administra-
   tive remedies until after the magistrate judge submitted his Report and Rec-
   ommendation. At that point, Jenkins filed an objection, stating that “the
   evidence of records [sic] will reveal that the plaintiff filed his Standard
   form 95 within the two (2) year statute of limitations and there was no object-
   tion to my submission.” The district court overruled that objection and held
   that because Jenkins did not “identify the agency with which he filed [the
   form], the date on which it was filed, [] the disposition of his alleged fil-
   ing, . . . [or] a copy of the form he says he filed,” he had failed to show that
   he had exhausted.
          Weeks later, Jenkins filed an untimely “objection” to that ruling, con-
   tending that he had indeed filed his form with the VA and that discovery
   would show that. But Jenkins still failed to provide any evidence pertaining
   to the Standard Form 95 itself. The court therefore declined to revisit the
   judgment. Jenkins filed a notice of appeal and attached what appears to be
   his Standard Form 95 and a FedEx tracking printout purportedly confirming

                                          3
Case: 22-30429         Document: 00516639459               Page: 4      Date Filed: 02/08/2023

                                          No. 22-30429

   that the Form had been delivered to a recipient in ‘Lakewood, Co.’ on
   November 6, 2018.
           Regardless, Jenkins did not present that evidence until after the dis-
   trict court had closed the case. And “because our review is confined to an
   examination of materials before the lower court at the time the ruling was
   made[,] subsequent materials are irrelevant.” Nissho-Iwai, 845 F.2d at 1307.
   Thus, the success of Jenkins’s appeal rises and falls on the evidence and con-
   tentions in the filings submitted before the final judgment. There, we find
   nothing more than conclusory statements. Allegations such as “it’s a matter
   of record that plaintiff did file his Standard Form 95 with the defendant” are
   speculative and conclusory. Even when viewed with the deference to which
   Jenkins is entitled, bare allegations cannot support a finding that he properly
   exhausted. Without such a showing, he has not established federal question
   jurisdiction.1
           The judgment of dismissal without prejudice was correct and is
   AFFIRMED.

           1
             Jenkins provides no other tenable basis for federal jurisdiction. His claim that he
   has diversity jurisdiction is without merit—from the face of the pleadings, all parties are in
   Louisiana. Jenkins’ only assertion to the contrary is that “although TriWest does business
   in Louisiana, it’s [sic] corporate Headquarters is in Arizona.” But even if that is true,
   diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity—“no party on one side may be a citizen
   of the same State as any party on the other side”—and Jenkins has made no showing that
   the other plaintiffs are diverse. Mas v. Perry, 489 F.2d 1396, 1398–99 (5th Cir. 1974); see
   also 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

                                                 4