Tidwell v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

Background

Edward Tidwell’s complaint listed twelve claims against Kaiser relating to medical care Kaiser provided to Tidwell’s daughter, who is now deceased. The order states that each claim arose under state law.

Jurisdiction analysis

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case. It found no federal-question jurisdiction because none of Tidwell’s twelve claims arose under federal law. It also found no diversity jurisdiction.

The court rejected Tidwell’s citations to several federal statutes as a basis for jurisdiction. It said that, as a private citizen, Tidwell lacked standing to bring claims under the cited federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206–07. It also said he lacked standing to challenge Kaiser’s federal tax status under 26 U.S.C. § 501. Regarding the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, the court explained that such an action would require an in-camera complaint filed in the name of the Government, which Tidwell had not filed. The court further stated that none of his enumerated claims asserted a False Claims Act violation or any other federal-law violation. Finally, the court said the Fair Housing Act provision Tidwell cited concerned discrimination in housing and had no connection to his claims; any possible claim under that provision was patently without merit.

Rulings and disposition

The court granted Kaiser’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied Tidwell’s motion to appoint counsel. The Clerk was ordered to close the case file.

The order does not specify whether the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.