Pagaling v. Trihn
- Beth Freeman
- 5:23-cv-00432
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Pagaling v. Trihn, Judge Freeman dismissed Michael Joseph Pagaling’s negligence case for lack of federal jurisdiction and denied his pending motions as moot.
Michael Joseph Pagaling’s federal action was dismissed, and his pending motions were denied as moot. The court stated that the negligence claim must be pursued in state court.
What happened
In Pagaling v. Trihn, Michael Joseph Pagaling, a state prisoner at Napa State Hospital, sued Dr. Trihn over medical care for bladder and catheter infections, headaches, and diarrhea. He described his claims as negligence or malpractice and sought money through a settlement in federal court.
The court screened the complaint and found that it raised only a state-law negligence claim. Because the complaint did not show a valid claim under the federal civil-rights statute, the court found no basis for federal jurisdiction. The court also noted that Pagaling had pursued the same claim in an earlier related proceeding and had been directed to pursue it in state court.
The court dismissed the action for lack of federal jurisdiction and denied Pagaling’s pending motions for judicial arbitration, to quash the summons, and for a subpoena as moot. Judge Freeman ordered the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Pagaling v. Trihn · No. 5:23-cv-00432
- Beth Freeman
- May 22, 2023
Background
Michael Joseph Pagaling, a state prisoner at Napa State Hospital, filed a civil-rights complaint against Dr. Trihn. Pagaling alleged that Dr. Trihn provided deficient care for a bladder infection and an infection around his catheter. He also alleged that Dr. Trihn dismissed his complaints about headaches and diarrhea as normal. Pagaling described the claims as negligence or malpractice and sought $50,000 through a settlement or judicial arbitration in federal court.
Pagaling had pursued the same medical-care claim in an earlier related proceeding. That proceeding had originally included a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and a state-law gross-negligence claim. After the federal claim was no longer included, the court dismissed the earlier action for lack of federal jurisdiction and directed Pagaling to pursue the negligence claim in state court. The opinion states that Pagaling appeared to have filed a state-court action.
Screening and Jurisdiction
Because Pagaling was a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental employee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court had to identify claims that were legally sufficient and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant.
The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires an alleged violation of a federal constitutional or statutory right by a person acting under state authority. The court found that the complaint contained no legally cognizable claim under that statute. It concluded that Pagaling was pursuing only a state-law negligence or malpractice claim against Dr. Trihn, so there was no basis for federal jurisdiction or for the federal court to order settlement proceedings.
Disposition
The court DISMISSED the action for lack of federal jurisdiction. In light of that dismissal, it DENIED as moot the pending motions for judicial arbitration, to quash the summons, and for a subpoena. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. The court separately stated that it would address Pagaling’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee in another order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.