Opinion
No. 2 CA-CV 2013-0095
02-06-2014
MARSHALL MARTINEZ, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, AND ITS AGENTS AT THE SAGUARO CORRECTIONAL CENTER; TODD THOMAS, WARDEN; CRISTI RODRIGUEZ, HEAD NURSE; PATTI SELLS, HEAD NURSE FOR SAGUARO MEDICAL UNIT; JOHN MATTINGLY, CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR; MARCOS LOPEZ, CHIEF OF SECURITY; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, Defendants/Appellees.
Marshall Martinez, Eloy In Propria Persona Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C., Chandler By Daniel P. Struck and Kevin L. Nguyen Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND
MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c); Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(c).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. CV201101666
The Honorable Gilberto V. Figueroa, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Marshall Martinez, Eloy
In Propria Persona
Struck Wieneke & Love, P.L.C., Chandler
By Daniel P. Struck and Kevin L. Nguyen
Counsel for Defendants/Appellees
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Kelly authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred. KELLY, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Marshall Martinez appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing his medical negligence action against Todd Thomas, Patti Sells, John Mattingly, and Marcos Lopez—employees of the Saguaro Correctional Center (SCC defendants). He argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and that the failure to hold a hearing on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction violated his due process rights. We affirm.
Although named in the complaint, neither the Corrections Corporation of America nor Cristi Rodriguez were served with process. Because unserved defendants are not "parties" within the meaning of Rule 54(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P., the final judgment disposing of all claims against the four served defendants constitutes a final and appealable judgment. See McHazlett v. Otis Eng'g Corp., 133 Ariz. 530, 532, 652 P.2d 1377, 1379 (1982).
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 Martinez is a Hawaii Department of Public Safety inmate who is incarcerated at SCC in Arizona. In 2008, he filed a complaint against the SCC defendants in Pinal County, alleging their gross negligence regarding the care and treatment of his glaucoma had resulted in a loss of eyesight. In subsequent pleadings regarding injunctive relief, Martinez argued the trial court was required to determine whether it retained subject matter jurisdiction over his action before making any further rulings. He contended his imprisonment had been extended illegally, changing his status from "prisoner" to "slave," and suggested the transition affected the court's jurisdiction and the applicable standard of care.
¶3 The SCC defendants filed a motion to dismiss Martinez's medical malpractice claims for failure to comply with statutory expert opinion requirements and for failure to state a claim. They also filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on Martinez's remaining claims, including allegations of retaliation and conspiracy. Martinez did not respond substantively to the arguments raised in the motions, objecting only on the ground that the court had not yet established it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The court granted both of defendants' motions and dismissed the matter in its entirety with prejudice, finding it had subject matter jurisdiction over Martinez's claims but that his complaint failed to state a valid legal claim and was not supported by facts that would establish liability. This appeal followed.
Jurisdiction
¶4 Martinez first argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. He suggests the court's jurisdiction was affected by his shift in status from "prisoner" to "slave/citizen," which changed the statutes, rules, and procedures applicable to his case. We review de novo the court's determination that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the action. See Mitchell v. Gamble, 207 Ariz. 364, ¶ 6, 86 P.3d 944, 947 (App. 2004).
¶5 The superior court is a court of general jurisdiction, State ex rel. Neely v. Brown, 177 Ariz. 6, 8, 864 P.2d 1038, 1040 (1993), and has original jurisdiction over "[c]ases and proceedings in which exclusive jurisdiction is not vested by law in another court." Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 14. Even assuming, without deciding, that Martinez could present a meritorious argument regarding his prisoner status, he has not shown it would have affected the court's jurisdiction over his civil complaint. Although a prisoner's circumstances may affect the statutory basis of an action, the court generally has subject matter jurisdiction over claims of medical negligence brought by prisoners and non-prisoners alike. Compare Bailey-Null v. ValueOptions, 221 Ariz. 63, ¶ 25, 209 P.3d 1059, 1066 (App. 2009) (statutory medical malpractice action brought in superior court), with Gunter v. State, 153 Ariz. 386, 386, 736 P.2d 1198, 1198 (App. 1987) (prisoner action for negligent medical treatment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought in superior court). Martinez has not proposed exclusive jurisdiction over his claims is vested in any other court. Therefore, the court did not err by concluding it had jurisdiction over the subject matter of Martinez's claims.
Martinez acknowledged in his complaint that the amount of damages he sought exceeded the jurisdictional threshold of the superior court. See A.R.S. § 22-201 (justice court has exclusive original jurisdiction of civil action when amount in controversy is ten thousand dollars or less).
¶6 Moreover, the error Martinez alleges would not compel reversal in any event. The trial court concluded Martinez had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and dismissed the action for that reason—a determination Martinez has not directly challenged. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c). The result would have been the same had the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the claims. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Martinez argues the court erred by "dismissing the complaint only on the medical issue." However, the basis of the court's dismissal would not affect the ultimate outcome and an error that does not prejudice the appellant's substantial rights is not reversible. See Warner v. Sw. Desert Images, LLC, 218 Ariz. 121, ¶ 10, 180 P.3d 986, 992 (App. 2008).
Due Process Rights
¶7 Martinez next argues the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. He argues the trial court failed to review the documents he had submitted regarding his allegedly illegal incarceration and should have considered his status as a "slave/citizen," rather than as a prisoner. We review for an abuse of discretion the court's determination that an evidentiary hearing on the issue of jurisdiction was unnecessary. See Moulton v. Napolitano, 205 Ariz. 506, 510-11, 73 P.3d 637, 641-42 (App. 2003).
Although the SCC defendants point out that Martinez cannot directly challenge his Hawaii sentence in this action, we do not address the issue because it is not necessary to our resolution of the appeal and because Martinez clarifies in his reply brief that he does not seek review of his allegedly illegal imprisonment.
--------
¶8 Martinez has failed to establish the trial court abused its discretion. See Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Osterkamp, 172 Ariz. 191, 193, 836 P.2d 404, 406 (App. 1992) (appellant has burden on appeal to show error). He has not supported his contention that the court failed to review the documents he had attached to his complaint, nor has he explained what evidence he could have presented at an evidentiary hearing that would have affected the court's jurisdiction over his claims. See Gatecliff v. Great Rep. Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 502, 507, 744 P.2d 29, 34 (App. 1987) (subject matter jurisdiction depends on general nature of charges contained in complaint). Therefore, we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion or violated Martinez's due process rights by failing to conduct additional proceedings.
¶9 Furthermore, Martinez indicates he wished to further challenge the trial court's jurisdiction at a hearing. Because the action would have been dismissed regardless of the outcome of a hearing on jurisdiction, any alleged error did not affect the outcome and cannot constitute reversible error. See Warner, 218 Ariz. 121, ¶ 10, 180 P.3d at 992.
Disposition
¶10 For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.