Debra Wilson v. Dallas County Hospital Dist
715 F. App’x 319
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Debra Wilson underwent cardiac catheterization at Parkland; she later discovered (2014 CT angiography) a calcified fragment of a plastic catheter extending along her aorta that she alleges was left during the 2007 procedure.
- Wilson sued Parkland (and a John Doe) in state court in 2015 alleging negligence, lack of informed consent, and fraudulent nondisclosure; she later added federal claims including §1983 claims for bodily privacy/intrusion, conspiracy, cover-up, and an alternative Fifth Amendment taking claim.
- Parkland removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, remanding them to state court.
- After the dismissal and remand, Debra Wilson died; Charlie Wilson (surviving spouse and executor) sought a Rule 59 new trial or leave to amend; the magistrate judge denied the Rule 59 motion as moot and for lack of jurisdiction, citing that the court was divested once the remand order issued.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the federal claims, held the magistrate judge erred in thinking it lacked jurisdiction to decide the Rule 59 motion, but denied relief on the merits (no leave to amend and no new trial warranted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction over remand and Rule 59 orders | Court lacks jurisdiction to review remand/Rule 59 because remand divested district court once mailed | Magistrate judge’s remand was reviewable because it declined supplemental jurisdiction, not remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Court has appellate jurisdiction to review the orders; remand here was not jurisdictional and is reviewable |
| Sufficiency of federal claims (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Complaint (and incorporated news article) alleged pattern of neglect and cover-up; discovery needed to show facts | Rule 12(b)(6) decided on the face of the complaint; allegations amount to medical negligence, not constitutional violations | Dismissal affirmed: allegations did not plausibly allege a §1983 constitutional violation or state action sufficient for deliberate-indifference claim |
| Magistrate judge’s authority to decide Rule 59 motion after remand | Magistrate judge lacked jurisdiction after remand, so denial for lack of jurisdiction was improper | Remand divested court once certified copy issued (per older precedent) | Magistrate judge erred in declaring itself without jurisdiction and should have addressed the Rule 59 motion; appellate court reviews the Rule 59 denial de novo |
| Rule 59 request for new trial / leave to amend | Requested new hearing and leave to amend (to add deliberate-indifference and wrongful-death claims) | Plaintiff already amended once; deliberate-indifference requires custody/special relationship absent here; wrongful-death claim depends on same barred constitutional theory | New trial unnecessary; leave to amend denied on the merits—plaintiff cannot allege a constitutional right to medical care or deliberate indifference given lack of custodial relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must state a plausible claim)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (no constitutional duty to provide aid absent custody or special relationship)
- In re Shell Oil Co., 932 F.2d 1523 (5th Cir. 1991) (remand orders based on lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not reviewable)
- Browning v. Navarro, 743 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1984) (once remand order mailed to state court clerk, federal court is divested of jurisdiction in lack-of-jurisdiction remand cases)
- Camsoft Data Sys., Inc. v. S. Elec. Supply, Inc., 756 F.3d 327 (5th Cir. 2014) (appellate review is available unless remand was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction or removal defect)
- Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (limits on appellate review of remand orders)
- Atteberry v. Nocona Gen. Hosp., 430 F.3d 245 (5th Cir. 2005) (elements for a §1983 claim include violation of federal right and action under color of state law)