United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON DEFENDANT AMANDA
SEIRUP’S MOTION TO DISMISS
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
action, Plaintiff Luc Gagnon, an inmate at the Maine State
Prison, alleges that Defendants Amanda Seirup, Ph.D., and
Bert Rand Gosselin denied him necessary treatment regarding
his mental health condition.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Seirup’s motion
to dismiss. (ECF No. 10.) Through her motion, Defendant
argues that the case against her should be dismissed because
Plaintiff has not complied with the pre-litigation procedures
required by the Maine Health Security Act for claims of
medical malpractice. Plaintiff has not filed a written
opposition to the motion. I recommend the Court grant in part
and deny in part the motion.
commenced this action by filing a form complaint specified
for use by prisoners alleging civil rights claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Gosselin told Plaintiff he did not have time for
Plaintiff when Plaintiff reported suicide ideation, and that
Plaintiff attempted to commit suicide later that day.
Plaintiff also alleges that after these events, Defendant
Seirup, a prison physician, failed to provide him with his
evidently argues in part that if the Court grants her motion
to dismiss Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim, the
Court should the Plaintiff’s complaint against her.
Dismissal of the entire complaint against Defendant Seirup,
however, is not appropriate based on the pending motion.
Plaintiff’s complaint, on the form for claims arising
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, can reasonably be construed as
Plaintiff’s attempt to assert a federal civil rights
claim. In her motion to dismiss, Defendant did not address
Plaintiff’s federal claim. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s federal claim would remain even if the
Court were to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for medical
extent Plaintiff attempts to assert a medical malpractice
claim, Plaintiff has not alleged in his complaint or
otherwise demonstrated that he has complied with the
pre-litigation requirements of the Maine Health Security Act,
24 M.R.S. § 2851, et seq. Among other things,
Plaintiff’s filings lack any evidence to suggest
Plaintiff served and filed a written notice of claim in
accordance with or otherwise satisfied the requirements of 24
M.R.S. § 2853.
Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate compliance with the
Maine Health Security Act, which is a necessary prerequisite
to the filing of a medical malpractice action, dismissal of
any negligence claim Plaintiff intended to assert is
appropriate. See Henderson v. Laser Spine Inst., 815
F.Supp.2d 353, 383 (D. Me. 2011); Kidder v. Richmond Area
Health Ctr., 595 F.Supp.2d 139, 143 (D. Me. 2009).
see also Hewett v. Inland Hosp., 39 F.Supp.2d 84, 88
(D. Me. 1999) (remanding medical malpractice claim to state
court despite existence of related federal EMTALA claim
“because retaining jurisdiction until the conclusion of
the screening panel proceedings would unduly delay resolution
of the EMTALA claim”).
on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the Court grant in
part Defendant Seirup’s motion to dismiss, and dismiss
without prejudice any state law medical malpractice claim
Plaintiff has asserted against Defendant Seirup.
may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge’s report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting
memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a
copy thereof. A responsive memorandum shall be filed within
fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the
right to de novo review by the district court and to