Wideman v. Watson, 617 F. App'x 891

Plaintiff Eugene Wideman, Jr., a federal employee who received FECA benefits for a work injury, sued Dr. William Watson and The Maple Leaf Orthopaedic Clinic alleging negligent treatment that caused further injury and denied follow-up care and records.
Wideman asserted federal jurisdiction via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8101), sought access to medical records and $2 million in damages, and proceeded pro se.
The district court dismissed the amended complaint sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice. Wideman appealed.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction de novo and required Wideman to show his complaint on its face invoked a federal cause of action or raised a substantial federal question.
The court found no allegation that defendants acted under color of state or federal law, and FECA does not create a private cause of action against private medical providers; thus the complaint failed to present a colorable federal claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 provides federal jurisdiction	Wideman: constitutional violations (First/ Fourth Amendments) by defendants	Defendants: are private medical providers, not state actors	Dismissed — Complaint lacks allegation defendants acted under color of state law, so § 1983 is patently meritless for jurisdictional purposes
Whether a Bivens claim is available	Wideman: federal constitutional claims may be asserted against defendants	Defendants: not federal officers or acting under federal authority	Dismissed — no facts show federal action; Bivens claim patently meritless
Whether FECA (5 U.S.C. § 8101) creates a private federal cause of action against private doctors	Wideman: FECA entitles him to continuous competent medical care and private remedy	Defendants: FECA governs United States liability and compensation procedure, not suits against private providers	Dismissed — § 8101 defines terms, FECA does not create a private cause of action against private providers
Whether state-law malpractice with reference to FECA raises a substantial federal question for § 1331 jurisdiction	Wideman: federal standard under FECA is necessarily raised and disputed	Defendants: issue is private malpractice; federal interest is minimal and no direct U.S. stake	Dismissed — federal question not ‘‘substantial’’ and exercising jurisdiction would disturb federal-state balance; state-law claim must proceed in state court

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, 770 F.3d 944 (10th Cir.) (standard for pleading federal jurisdiction)
Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, 696 F.3d 1018 (10th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint must show federal jurisdiction)
Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir.) (§ 1983 ordinarily establishes federal jurisdiction)
McKenzie v. USCIS, 761 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir.) (colorability threshold; dismiss for jurisdiction where claim is insubstantial)
Wittner v. Banner Health, 720 F.3d 770 (10th Cir.) (§ 1983 requires action under color of state law)
Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (Sup. Ct.) (state-action requirement for § 1983 claims)
Hill v. Kemp, 478 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir.) (cannot enforce constitutional rights against private actors)
Dry v. United States, 235 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir.) (Bivens requires federal officer or action under federal authority)
Farley v. United States, 162 F.3d 613 (10th Cir.) (FECA governs exclusive remedy against United States for work injuries)
Gilmore v. Weatherford, 694 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir.) (assessing whether federal issue is necessarily raised and disputed)
Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on federal jurisdiction for state claims resting on federal issues)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (Sup. Ct.) (failure to state a claim is a merits issue, not jurisdictional)