Ristie v. United States
3:25-cv-01221
N.D. Cal.Jun 24, 2025Background
- Gordon Ristie filed a pro se medical malpractice suit concerning care he received in 1987 from Dr. Harrell-Bruder, a Navy physician at Naval Medical Center San Diego.
- The suit was initially filed in California state court against Dr. Harrell-Bruder, but was removed to federal court and the United States was substituted as defendant under the Westfall Act.
- The government moved to dismiss on grounds that Ristie failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).
- Ristie amended his complaint after the first dismissal motion, but again failed to allege he filed an administrative tort claim.
- The government renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust remedies under the FTCA.
- The court reviewed the filings and concluded there was no evidence Ristie exhausted FTCA requirements, and further amendment would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FTCA exhaustion requirement | Ristie did not allege exhaustion; focused on status of doctor | FTCA bars suit absent exhaustion of remedies | Failure to exhaust; court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether Dr. Harrell-Bruder acted within federal scope | Claimed insufficient evidence of her federal employment | Scope certification by Attorney General's designee | Scope certified; uncontested and conclusive |
| Plaintiff's right to proceed against individual doctor | Implied doctor was not federal employee at relevant time | Federal gov't properly substituted as defendant | Plaintiff cannot sue individual; only US |
| Leave to amend for jurisdictional defect | No showing of possible amendment to cure | Further amendment would be futile | Dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (must exhaust FTCA remedies before filing in court)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (pleading requirements for asserting federal jurisdiction)
- Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035 (standards for Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal)
- Wilson v. Drake, 87 F.3d 1073 (scope of employment under California law)
- Ward v. Gordon, 999 F.2d 1399 (military doctor acted within scope of federal employment)