United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
L. ROBART United States District Judge
the court are Defendants State of Washington Health Care
Authority (“HCA”) and Northwest Hospital &
Medical Center's (“Northwest”) motions to
dismiss Plaintiff Daryl Manson's complaint. (HCA Mot.
(Dkt. # 8); N.W. Mot. (Dkt. # 11).) The court has considered
the motions, the parties' filings in opposition to and
support of the // motions, the relevant portions of the
record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised,
court grants the motions for the reasons set forth below.
Manson filed this suit on February 9, 2017. (See IFP
Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) In the part of his complaint directed
toward HCA, Mr. Manson copies the text of a notification he
allegedly received from HCA regarding the unauthorized
disclosure of Mr. Manson's Medicaid information between
November 15, 2013, and December 24, 2015. (Compl. (Dkt. # 4)
at 4-9.) The notification states that an HCA employee emailed
spreadsheets containing health information to someone who
should not have received the information. (See Id.
Manson's complaint then describes a series of events that
allegedly occurred at Northwest in January 2016. (See
Id. at 10.) Mr. Manson alleges that after he was
admitted to Northwest on January 3, 2016, staff gave Mr.
Manson a variety of medications, inserted an intravenous line
into his arm, caused Mr. Manson to go into cardiac arrest,
and intubated Mr. Manson to start his breathing.
(Id. at 10-11.) Mr. Manson asserts that he remained
intubated and unconscious in the intensive care unit at
Northwest from January 3, 2016, to January 9, 2016.
(Id. at 11.) Mr. Manson further alleges that after
regaining consciousness, he was moved to the rehabilitation
unit of the hospital for 12 days. (Id. at 12.) While
in the rehabilitation unit, a physician allegedly prescribed
Mr. Manson medications that caused him to suffer
hallucinations, vertigo, and nausea. (Id. at 12.)
These ailments rendered Mr. Manson dependent on a walker to
walk during his hospital stay. (Id.) Mr. Manson was
released from Northwest on January 22, 2016. (Id. at
13.) Mr. Manson alleges that the events that occurred at
Northwest were “a botched attempt . . . to mentally and
physically incapacitate” him. (Id. at 17.)
Manson alleges that HCA was negligent in disclosing his
personal health information and defamed him by doing so.
(Compl. at 4-9.) He asserts that Northwest committed medical
malpractice during his treatment there. (Id. at
10-15.) Mr. Manson seeks damages for his injuries. (See
Id. at 28, 31.)
have each filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. (See
HCA Mot. at 1; N.W. Mot. at 1.) They argue that the Eleventh
Amendment bars Mr. Manson's suit because he brings claims
against entities that are immune from suit in federal court.
(HCA Mot. at 1-2; N.W. Mot. at 2-3.) Mr. Manson responds to
the motions by requesting a tort claim form. (See
1st Resp. (Dkt. # 14) at 2 (“Plaintiff at this time is
requesting a ‘claim form' from State of Washington
Risk Management to file a pre[-]suit complaint . . .
.”); see also 2d Resp. (Dkt. # 19).) The court
now addresses Defendants' motions.
argument that the Eleventh Amendment bars Mr. Manson's
claims implicates the court's subject matter
jurisdiction. See, e.g., Savage v. Glendale
Union High Sch., Dist. No. 205, Maricopa Cty., 343 F.3d
1036, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003). For this reason, the court first
addresses whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over
this action. // Because the court concludes that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, see infra § III.B,
the court declines to address the question of personal
motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) tests the
court's subject matter jurisdiction. See Safe Air for
Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004);
Holdner v. Or. Dep't of Agric., 676 F.Supp.2d
1141, 1144 (D. Or. 2009). “When a motion to dismiss
attacks subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) on
the face of the complaint, the court assumes the factual
allegations in the complaint are true and draws all
reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”
City of L.A. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 22
F.Supp.3d 1047, 1052 (C.D. Cal. 2014); see also
Covarrubias v. Cty. of Mono, No. CIV. S-09-0613 LKK/KJM,
2009 WL 2590729, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2009) (“In a
Rule 12(b)(1) motion [bringing a facial attack], the
plaintiff is entitled to safeguards similar to those
applicable when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is made.”). The
court also liberally construes a pro se
plaintiff's filings. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729
F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2013). When a party raises the
question of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears
the burden of establishing the court's jurisdiction.
See Ass'n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States,
217 F.3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000).
is clear that “agencies of the state are immune under
the Eleventh Amendment from private damages or suits for
injunctive relief brought in federal
court.”Savage, 343 F.3d at 1040 (citing
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465
U.S. 89, 100 (1984)). A plaintiff can overcome the Eleventh
Amendment bar only if the state has consented to waive its
sovereign immunity or if ...