Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

NATALYA HAMPEL Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Defendant

* * * * CIVIL NO. L-09-2673 * * * ******* MEMORANDUM

Pro se plaintiff Natalya Hampel has brought several claims against the United States that
U U U U

arise out of the March 2002 death of her husband, Joseph Hampel. Now pending is the Government's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8). No hearing is necessary to decide this matter. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2008). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will, by separate
U U

Order of even date, GRANT the Government's Motion. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case. I. Background Mrs. Hampel filed her Complaint on October 9, 2009. Count I alleges that Mr. Hampel's death was caused by negligent medical care he received at several Veteran's Affairs ("VA") medical centers. Counts II and III allege that the Government violated Mrs. Hampel's constitutional rights by denying her claims for VA benefits. Counts IV and V allege that the Government invaded Mrs. Hampel's privacy by making false statements in Mr. Hampel's medical charts (Count IV) and attempting to have him declared incompetent (Count V). Count VI alleges that the Government violated Mr. and Mrs. Hampel's constitutional rights by subjecting them to warrantless electronic surveillance and physical searches.

The Government filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 22, 2010. Docket No. 10. On February 4, 2010, Mrs. Hampel filed a "Motion for Order to Instruct Defendant to Answer Complaint," which the Court construed as a response in opposition to the Government's Motion. Docket Nos. 12, 13. The Court afforded Mrs. Hampel an opportunity to supplement her opposition, and Mrs. Hampel filed additional materials on April 7, 2010. 1 Docket No. 17.
F F

II.

Discussion A. Standard

The Government contends that Mrs. Hampel's Complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim. There are two ways in which to present a 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. First, a defendant may claim that a complaint "fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based." Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th. Cir. 1982). All the facts alleged in the
U U

complaint are assumed to be true and the plaintiff is essentially given the same procedural protection as she would have under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id.
U U

Second, a defendant may claim that the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint are sufficient, but are not true. Id. In that event, the Court may consider evidence beyond the
U U

pleadings in satisfying itself of its authority to hear the case without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment. Williams v. United States, 50 F.3d 299, 304 (4th Cir. 1995).
U U

To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must plead plausible, not merely conceivable, facts in support of his claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
U U U

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). The complaint must state "more than labels and
U

The Government had previously indicated that it would not be filing a reply brief. See Docket No. 15. 2

1

conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at
U U

1965. The Court must, however, "assume the veracity [of well-pleaded factual allegations] and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement of relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
U U

129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009). B. Analysis 1. Count I

Download Hampel v. USA.pdf

Maryland Law