Luckey v. United States Department of the Navy
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-06071
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Luckey v. United States Department of the Navy, Judge Gilliam dismissed the case without prejudice after Congress enacted relevant legislation.
Derrick Luckey and Annette Luckey’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion states that the plaintiffs sought to pursue an administrative claim under the newly enacted legislation, while leaving any later Feres argument unresolved.
What happened
Luckey v. United States Department of the Navy involved Derrick Luckey and Annette Luckey’s lawsuit against the United States and the Navy over their daughter’s death aboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan. The plaintiffs said she died after defendants failed to treat her.
The plaintiffs, who represented themselves, asked to dismiss the case without prejudice after Congress enacted legislation allowing them to file an administrative claim with the Secretary of Defense. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case without specifying that it would be without prejudice and argued that the Feres doctrine still barred the court from hearing the claims.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. He did not decide how the Feres doctrine might apply if the plaintiffs later returned to court; the defendants could raise that argument if judicial relief became necessary.
The detailed version
- Luckey v. United States Department of the Navy · No. 4:18-cv-06071
- Haywood Gilliam
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
Derrick Luckey and Annette Luckey, proceeding without lawyers, sued the United States and the United States Department of the Navy based on the death of their daughter, Danyelle A. Luckey. The complaint alleged that Danyelle, a Navy personnel assistant, died aboard the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan because the defendants failed to treat her.
The plaintiffs previously asked the court to pause the case while Congress considered the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. The court granted that request. Congress later passed and signed the Act, which incorporated the Sergeant First Class Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act of 2019.
Parties’ Requests
After the legislation became law, the plaintiffs asked to voluntarily dismiss the case without prejudice so they could file an administrative claim with the Secretary of the Department of Defense concerning the alleged medical malpractice.
The defendants asked the court to “simply” dismiss the case rather than specify dismissal without prejudice. They argued that the new legislation created only an administrative claim process, without court review or an appeal to a court, and that the case remained barred by the Feres doctrine, which can limit lawsuits against the United States arising from military service.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file. The court did not decide whether the Feres doctrine would apply to the plaintiffs’ claims if they were later reasserted, including whether the doctrine would prevent the court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the defendants could raise that argument if the plaintiffs later needed to return to court to seek judicial relief.
Disposition
The case was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion did not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ allegations or decide the defendants’ Feres argument.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.