576 F. App'x 353
5th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Bette King (pro se) sued members of the Texas Medical Board after her daughter Jennifer C. Chaney’s death, alleging constitutional and state-law claims.
- The magistrate judge dismissed King’s claims brought on behalf of her deceased daughter and the daughter’s estate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding King lacked standing to sue for the decedent.
- King sought leave to amend and had the husband’s permission to file on behalf of the daughter; she did not, however, show she was estate administrator or an heir.
- King also asserted personal wrongful-death losses (emotional and financial) as a parent under Texas law and framed constitutional claims alleging the Board was negligent in disciplining her daughter’s doctor.
- The district court dismissed King’s personal claims for failure to state a constitutional claim, concluding negligence by the Board did not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation.
- The court of appeals affirmed: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction as to claims on behalf of the daughter/estate; dismissal for failure to state a claim as to King’s personal claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue on behalf of decedent/estate | King argued she had permission (from decedent’s husband) and was allowed to amend, so she could sue for the daughter/estate | Defendants argued King lacked statutory standing because she was not shown to be estate administrator or an heir | King lacked standing; dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether parent has standing for wrongful-death losses | King claimed personal emotional/financial losses as a parent under Texas wrongful-death law | Defendants contested federal constitutional claim viability despite possible state-law standing | King may have state-law standing as a parent, but her federal constitutional claim fails on the merits |
| Sufficiency of alleged constitutional (substantive due process) claim | King alleged the Board’s negligent discipline allowed doctor to keep practicing, causing death — a constitutional injury | Defendants argued mere negligence in disciplining physicians does not constitute egregious/arbitrary conduct needed for substantive due process | Allegations of mere negligence insufficient; substantive due process claim dismissed for failure to state a claim |
| Proper procedural dismissal standard | King relied on prior leave to amend and factual assertions to preserve claims | Defendants relied on jurisdictional requirements and Rule 12(b)(6) standards | Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) affirmed for estate claims; dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) affirmed (modified) for King’s personal claim |
Key Cases Cited
- William v. Wynne, 533 F.3d 360 (5th Cir. 2008) (12(b)(1) review is de novo)
- K.P. v. LeBlanc, 729 F.3d 427 (5th Cir. 2013) (standing required for Article III jurisdiction)
- Pluet v. Frasier, 355 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2004) (§ 1983 claims require standing under state survival/wrongful-death statutes)
- Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1992) (same principle regarding state-law standing for federal claims)
- Mayhew v. Dealey, 143 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App. 2004) (Texas requires administrator status or heir status to bring survival actions)
- McClendon v. City of Columbia, 305 F.3d 314 (5th Cir. 2002) (mere negligence does not support a substantive due process claim)