James v. Byrd Memorial Hospital
2:17-cv-01502
| W.D. La. | Feb 14, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Joseph L. James, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, alleged he received negligent treatment for high blood pressure at Outpatient Medical and Byrd Memorial while jailed, resulting in an overdose.
- James filed state-court pleadings (including a Motion to Produce Documents and a supplemental petition) naming multiple defendants; amended petition served on Outpatient Medical in July 2017.
- Byrd Memorial and Dr. Lamme moved to dismiss for prematurity under Louisiana law for failure to obtain a medical review panel opinion; claims against them were dismissed without prejudice.
- The United States removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1346 after HHS certified Outpatient Medical as eligible for FTCA coverage and the Attorney General provided a scope-of-employment certification.
- The government moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing James failed to exhaust administrative remedies required by the FTCA; James did not respond and submitted no evidence of an administrative claim.
- The magistrate judge recommended granting the motion and dismissing the FTCA claims against the United States without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over FTCA claims | James alleged negligent medical care by Outpatient Medical/Dr. Lamme causing overdose (no explicit exhaustion argument in record) | United States: FTCA claims are jurisdictionally barred because James failed to present an administrative claim to HHS as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a) | Court: Dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (claims dismissed without prejudice) |
| Whether administrative exhaustion can be cured after filing suit | (No opposing evidence offered) | FTCA exhaustion is jurisdictional and cannot be cured after filing; a prematurely filed FTCA claim remains untimely | Court: Agrees exhaustion is jurisdictional and dismissal is required |
| Whether the government properly established FTCA coverage/scope certification | James did not contest scope certification | Government produced HHS certification and Attorney General scope-of-employment certification for Outpatient Medical/Lamme | Court: Accepted FTCA coverage but found jurisdictional bar due to lack of exhaustion |
| Whether plaintiff's failure to respond affects the jurisdictional inquiry | (No response) | Government relied on HHS declaration showing no administrative claim filed; absence of response leaves government's evidence unrebutted | Court: Plaintiff failed to meet burden to establish jurisdiction; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., 613 F.2d 507 (5th Cir. 1980) (plaintiff bears burden to show subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) (plaintiff’s burden to establish jurisdiction reaffirmed)
- Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (standards for 12(b)(1) factual attacks on jurisdiction)
- Gregory v. Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1981) (FTCA as a limited waiver of sovereign immunity)
- Price v. United States, 69 F.3d 46 (5th Cir. 1995) (failure to exhaust FTCA administrative remedies is jurisdictional and noncurable after suit is filed)
- Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural rule on objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation)