Jeffery Martin v. Pierce County
34 F.4th 1125
| 9th Cir. | 2022Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey Martin, incarcerated at Pierce County Detention Center, alleges delayed/insufficient care for eye symptoms that led to permanent vision damage and brought federal claims: a §1983 Eighth Amendment claim and a state-law medical-malpractice claim.
- Washington law, RCW 7.70A.020, requires a claimant at the time of commencing a medical-malpractice action to file a declaration electing or declining arbitration and to state the claimant was provided a copy of the statute by counsel.
- Martin did not file the RCW 7.70A.020 declaration when he commenced suit in federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the state malpractice claim for failure to comply with RCW 7.70A.020; the district court granted the motion and entered partial final judgment under Rule 54(b).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and concluded RCW 7.70A.020 conflicts with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (notably Rules 3 and 8) and therefore does not apply in federal court; the panel vacated the dismissal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 7.70A.020’s pre‑filing arbitration declaration applies in federal court | Martin: Federal Rules govern pleadings/commencement; no state pre‑filing declaration required in federal court | Appellees: RCW 7.70A.020 is a valid state procedural requirement and supports dismissing the state malpractice claim for noncompliance | RCW 7.70A.020 conflicts with FRCP Rules 3 and 8 and is displaced in federal court; dismissal vacated and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (federal rules govern where they answer the same question as state law)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (whether Federal Rules displace state law depends on whether they address the same issue)
- Gallivan v. United States, 943 F.3d 291 (6th Cir.) (state certificate/attachment requirements conflict with notice pleading under Rule 8)
- Pledger v. Lynch, 5 F.4th 511 (4th Cir.) (West Virginia pre‑suit certificate displaced by Federal Rules)
- Young v. United States, 942 F.3d 349 (7th Cir.) (Illinois affidavit/report requirement incompatible with Rule 8)
- Corley v. United States, 11 F.4th 79 (2d Cir.) (Connecticut certificate‑of‑merit does not apply in federal court)
- Albright v. Christensen, 24 F.4th 1039 (6th Cir.) (Michigan presuit notice and affidavit requirements conflict with Rules 3, 8, 9, 11, and 12)
- Putman v. Wenatchee Valley Med. Ctr., P.S., 216 P.3d 374 (Wash. 2009) (Washington Supreme Court invalidated the state certificate‑of‑merit requirement under state constitutional law)