VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE

S.D. Indiana

VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE

DecidedJuly 13, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00787

StatusUnknown

This text of VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE (VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE, (S.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MARK A. VANDENBOOM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:23-cv-00787-JPH-TAB ) BRIAN CLARKE, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE Mark VandenBoom alleges that Dr. Brian Clarke performed unnecessary and inappropriate procedures on him. Dkts. 1, 1-1. Because it did not appear that the Court had jurisdiction over Mr. VandenBoom's claim, he was ordered to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. Dkt. 6. Mr. VandenBoom has filed a "Response to Amend Jurisdictional Statement," dkt. 8, which the Court construes as a response to its show-cause order. In this filing, Mr. VandenBoom reiterates his position that this Court has jurisdiction because Dr. Clarke allegedly violated 18 U.S.C. § 1347, the federal health-care fraud criminal statute. Id. at 1. But, as the Court previously stated, "§ 1347 is a criminal statute; it does not contain any private right of action that would allow a plaintiff to sue for money damages in a civil case." Dkt. 6 at 2 (citing Chapa v. Adams, 168 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)). Mr. VandenBoom also appears to argue that, because Dr. Clarke's alleged fraud is the subject of another case pending in federal court, this Court has jurisdiction, too. Dkt. 8 at 1 (citing United States et al. v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc. et al, No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK (S.D. Ind.)). But the claims in that case are based on the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. See No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK, dkt. 96. That's not the theory Mr. VandenBoom is proceeding under, see dkt. 1, so the jurisdiction analysis is different. And, as stated, the Court has neither federal-question nor diversity- of-citizenship jurisdiction over this case. See dkt. 6. Thus, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Final judgment will issue by separate entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 7/13/2023 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon Distribution: United States District Judge MARK A. VANDENBOOM Southern District of Indiana 1895 S. 900 E Zionsville, IN 46077

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION MARK A. VANDENBOOM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:23-cv-00787-JPH-TAB ) BRIAN CLARKE, ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER DISMISSING CASE Mark VandenBoom alleges that Dr. Brian Clarke performed unnecessary and inappropriate procedures on him. Dkts. 1, 1-1. Because it did not appear that the Court had jurisdiction over Mr. VandenBoom's claim, he was ordered to show cause why his case should not be dismissed. Dkt. 6. Mr. VandenBoom has filed a "Response to Amend Jurisdictional Statement," dkt. 8, which the Court construes as a response to its show-cause order. In this filing, Mr. VandenBoom reiterates his position that this Court has jurisdiction because Dr. Clarke allegedly violated 18 U.S.C. § 1347, the federal health-care fraud criminal statute. Id. at 1. But, as the Court previously stated, "§ 1347 is a criminal statute; it does not contain any private right of action that would allow a plaintiff to sue for money damages in a civil case." Dkt. 6 at 2 (citing Chapa v. Adams, 168 F.3d 1036, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999)). Mr. VandenBoom also appears to argue that, because Dr. Clarke's alleged fraud is the subject of another case pending in federal court, this Court has jurisdiction, too. Dkt. 8 at 1 (citing United States et al. v. Cmty. Health Network, Inc. et al, No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK (S.D. Ind.)). But the claims in that case are based on the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq. See No. 1:14-cv-1215-RLY-MKK, dkt. 96. That's not the theory Mr. VandenBoom is proceeding under, see dkt. 1, so the jurisdiction analysis is different. And, as stated, the Court has neither federal-question nor diversity- of-citizenship jurisdiction over this case. See dkt. 6. Thus, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Final judgment will issue by separate entry. SO ORDERED. Date: 7/13/2023 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon Distribution: United States District Judge MARK A. VANDENBOOM Southern District of Indiana 1895 S. 900 E Zionsville, IN 46077

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

VANDENBOOM v. CLARKE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandenboom-v-clarke-insd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack