Jackson v. USA

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- [11] 12 EMMA JACKSON, No. 2:20-cv-02347 WBS AC 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DAVID SMITH, [16] Defendants. [18] ----oo0oo---- [19] Plaintiff Emma Jackson brought this action against [20] defendants United States of America and David Smith, claiming [21] that defendants’ conduct constituted intentional infliction of [22] emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, [23] intrusion into private affairs, public disclosure of private [24] facts, and professional negligence under California common law, [25] as well as a violation of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 , [26] 52. (See Compl. (Docket No. 1).) The United States now moves to [27] dismiss plaintiff’s claims in their entirety as against it. (See [28] 1 Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 13-1).) 2 Plaintiff was a patient of Wellspace Health 3 (“Wellspace”), a California non-profit which plaintiff alleges 4 “operates as a federally funded clinic.” (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9.) 5 Plaintiff’s physician at Wellspace was Dr. Troy Singh. (Id.) 6 Plaintiff alleges that without her permission Dr. Singh shared 7 her phone number (to which he had access by virtue of his role as 8 her health care provider at Wellspace) and her relationship 9 status with David Smith, and that Smith subsequently sent her an 10 unwanted text of a sexual nature. (Compl. Ex. 1. (“FTCA Claim).) 11 After submitting a claim to the United States 12 Department of Health and Human Services, see (FTCA Claim); 28 13 U.S.C. § 2675 (a), plaintiff initiated this action against the 14 United States and Smith in this court. (Docket No. 1.) 15 Plaintiff’s suit names the United States--but not Dr. Singh or 16 Wellspace--as a defendant because, under the Emergency Health 17 Personnel Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 233 (a), Public Health Services 18 (“PHS”) officers and employees are immune from suit “for actions 19 arising out of the performance of medical or related functions 20 within the scope of their employment.” Hui v. Castaneda, 559 21 U.S. 799 , 806 (2010). Section 233(a) ensures that, where a 22 plaintiff has a tort claim against the United States under the 23 Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), and the actions of a PHS 24 officer or employee which “aris[e] out of the performance of 25 medical or related functions” and which are “within the scope of 26 their employment” form the basis of the claim, the plaintiff has 27 a remedy only against the United States. Id. 28 While plaintiff does not allege that either Dr. Singh, 1 or Wellspace are PHS employees, 1992 amendments to § 233 provide 2 that certain federally-funded entities and their employees may be 3 “deemed” employees of PHS for purposes of § 233(a) immunity. See [4] 42 U.S.C. § 233 (g)(1)(A); Lowery v. Reinhardt, No. Civ. S-07-0880 5 RRB DAD, 2008 WL 550083 , *5 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008); Metcalf v. 6 West Suburban Hosp., 912 F. Supp. 382, 384 (N.D. Ill. 1996). 7 No party disputes that Dr. Singh and Wellspace are 8 properly “deemed” PHS employees for the purposes of § 233(a). 9 Further, the parties agree that, to state a claim against the 10 United States under § 233(a), plaintiff must plausibly allege 11 that (1) plaintiff’s claimed injuries resulted from Dr. Singh’s 12 performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions”; 13 and (2) Dr. Singh’s conduct was within the scope of his 14 employment. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 233 (a), (g)(1)(A); Castaneda, 559 15 U.S. at 806; Lowery, 2008 WL 550083 , at *5. 16 At oral argument, plaintiff’s counsel conceded that Dr. 17 Singh’s conduct, as alleged in the complaint, did not constitute 18 “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions” under § 233(a). 19 The court recognizes that the issue of whether Dr. Singh’s 20 alleged conduct constituted “medical, surgical, dental, or 21 related functions” under § 233(a) is entirely separate and 22 distinct from the question of whether his conduct was within the 23 scope of his employment at Wellspace. Because plaintiff has 24 conceded the first issue, however, the court concludes that 25 plaintiff has failed to allege facts which satisfy 42 U.S.C. 26 § 233(a) without making any finding as to the second issue. See 27 Castaneda, 559 U.S. at 806; Lowery, 2008 WL 550083 , at *5. 28 Because Dr. Singh’s alleged conduct does not fall 1 within the ambit of § 233(a), plaintiff’s claims against the 2 United States are not based upon a valid waiver of sovereign 3 immunity, and the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction 4 to hear them. See Federal Deposit Ins. Co. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 5 471, 475 (1994) (“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in 6 nature.”) 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant United States’ 8 motion to dismiss (Docket No. 13) be, and the same hereby is, 9 GRANTED. 10 | Dated: June 30, 2021 ation th hd. be— WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE