Pike v. Sibelius et al, No. 1:2013cv00392 - Document 31 (D.R.I. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying as moot 18 Motion for Extension of Time ; granting in part and referring the remaining portion (Counts 2 and 5) to Magistrate Judge Sullivan for Report & Recommendation 24 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 26 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 29 Motion to Amend/Correct. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 6/24/14. (Jackson, Ryan)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, as Secretary ) of the Department of Health and ) Human Services; STEVEN A. ) COSTANTINO, as Secretary of ) the Rhode Island Department of ) Human Services; and SOUTH COUNTY ) HEALTH AND REHABILITATION ) CENTER, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) F. NORRIS PIKE, ex rel. ESTATE OF CLAIRE S. PIKE, C.A. No. 13-392 S OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge. Plaintiff has brought claims against Kathleen Sebelius in her (now former) capacity as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ( Sebelius ), Steven A. Costantino in his capacity Human as Services Secretary ( RIDHS ), of the and Rhode South Island County Department of Health and Rehabilitation Center, Inc. ( South County ) stemming from the denial of his mother s Medicaid eligibility. Four motions are currently pending. For the reasons set forth below, the Court resolves these motions as follows: (1) Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time for Additional Pleading (ECF No. 18) is DENIED AS MOOT; (2) RIDHS Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED IN PART and the Court refers the remaining portion to Magistrate Judge Patricia A. Sullivan for a Report and Recommendation; (3) Sebelius Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED; and (4) Plaintiff s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT. I. Plaintiff s Pleading Motion for Extension of Time for Additional In this motion, filed in December 2013, Plaintiff sought a 30-day extension for additional pleading. It appears that all of the bases underlying this motion have been resolved or are otherwise no longer at issue, and therefore this motion is DENIED AS MOOT. II. RIDHS Motion to Dismiss This Court previously issued an Order on January 13, 2014 accepting, in part, Sullivan (ECF No. 22). Sullivan s a Report and Recommendation from Judge In that Order, the Court accepted Judge recommendation to dismiss Counts 1 and 3 which pertained to the use by an RIDHS hearing officer of a so-called Life Estate eligibility. Table to calculate Plaintiff s mother s Medicaid Therefore, insofar as RIDHS seeks dismissal of Counts 1 and 3, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 2 Pursuant to Judge Sullivan s Report and Recommendation, the Court granted Plaintiff 30 days leave to file a Second Amended Complaint naming a viable defendant in Counts 2 and 5. Judge Sullivan s Report and Recommendation did not assess the merits of Counts 2 and 5 because it concluded that the RIDHS hearing officer that Plaintiff originally sued was entitled to judicial immunity. Accordingly, the Court refers to Judge Sullivan for a further Report and Recommendation the issue of whether RIDHS is entitled to dismissal of Counts 2 and 5 in light of Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint. III. Sebelius Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint This Court s January 13, 2014 order accepted the portion of Judge Sullivan s Report and Recommendation dismissal of all claims against Sebelius. that recommended Per that order, a motion to dismiss filed by Sebelius was granted, and Sebelius was dismissed from the suit in all respects. Undeterred, Plaintiff has again asserted Sebelius in his Second Amended Complaint. claims against Because Plaintiff was not entitled to do so, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), Sebelius Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. IV. Plaintiff s Motion to Amend As noted previously, this Court s order of January 13, 2014 granted Plaintiff Complaint. 30 days leave to file a Second Amended Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint within 3 the applicable timeframe on February 10, 2014. For reasons not immediately apparent, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend on March 10, 2014, in which he sought the Court s permission to file the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff seeks relief that he has already been granted. The Court s January 13 order invited Plaintiff to file amended complaint within 30 days, and Plaintiff did so. this reason, Plaintiff s Motion to Amend is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. William E. Smith Chief Judge Date: June 24, 2014 4 an For
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
