Ristie v. United States
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:25-cv-01221
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ristie v. United States, Judge Hixson granted amendment and denied the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Gordon Ristie and the United States of America; the ruling permits Ristie to amend his complaint and leaves the government's motion to dismiss denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Ristie v. United States, Gordon Ristie sued over medical care allegedly provided by Dr. Harrell-Bruder while she served as a Navy physician in 1987. The case was transferred from state court, and the United States replaced Dr. Harrell-Bruder as the defendant under the Westfall Act.
The government moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ristie, who is representing himself, moved to amend his complaint. The court treated his motion as an attempt to amend under the federal rule allowing one amendment without prior permission and allowed him to file an amended complaint.
Judge Hixson granted Ristie's motion to amend and ordered him to file the amended complaint by March 20, 2025. The court denied the government's motion to dismiss without prejudice. The government may renew the motion if Ristie does not file an amended complaint by that date.
The detailed version
- Ristie v. United States · No. 3:25-cv-01221
- Thomas Hixson
- Feb. 28, 2025
Background
Gordon Ristie, representing himself, filed a complaint in California state court against Dr. Harrell-Bruder, a former employee of Naval Medical Center San Diego. The complaint asserted claims arising from allegations that Dr. Harrell-Bruder provided medical care to Ristie while serving as a staff physician in the United States Navy in 1987. The court said the claim appeared to be for professional negligence based on acts taken within the scope of her federal employment.
The action was removed to federal court on February 5, 2025. The United States was substituted as the defendant under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d). The government then filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction. Ristie responded by filing a motion to amend.
Ruling
The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1) allows a party to amend a pleading once as a matter of course within specified time limits, including after service of a Rule 12 motion. Because Ristie was representing himself, the court construed his filing as an attempt to comply with that rule. The court noted that Ristie had not previously amended the complaint and therefore could file an amended complaint as a matter of course.
The court granted Ristie's motion to amend and ordered him to file any amended complaint by March 20, 2025. It denied without prejudice the government's motion to dismiss. The court stated that the defendant could re-notice the motion to dismiss if Ristie failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.