Bell v. HCR Manor Care Facility

Citation. 432 Fed. Appx. 908 (2011)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation432 Fed. Appx. 908 (2011)

Brief Fact Summary.

Bell (plaintiff) sued HCR Manor Care Facility and other defendants (defendants) based on insufficient care.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6), courts need not accept any legal conclusions submitted by the plaintiff as true.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

As a general rule a claim cannot be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because of the absence of a federal cause of action.

View Full Point of Law

Plaintiff sued defendants, a nursing home and physician, for insufficient care of a wound, which caused it to become infected. The plaintiff brought a federal lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the defendants argued they were not state actors and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6), which the court granted.

Issue.

Whether under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6), courts need not accept any legal conclusions submitted by the plaintiff as true.

Held.

Yes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6), courts need not accept any legal conclusions submitted by the plaintiff as true.

Discussion.

The case must be dismissed under rule 12 (b)(6) because the plaintiff has failed to prove the defendants were state actors and thus the court cannot hear the federal causes of action. While under rule 12 (b)(6) the court must take the plaintiffs factual allegations as true and if those facts are plausible to state a claim, under Twombly and Iqbal, they may deny the motion, they are not required to accept any legal conclusions as true. Under the federal causes of action presented here the defendants as state actors must violate a federal law. Here, while the defendants have a state license they are still classified as private actors.