Tidwell
Tidwell v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDWARD C TIDWELL, Case No. 23-cv-00776-AGT
Plaintiff,
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO DISMISS
v. AND TO APPOINT COUNSEL
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 35 PLAN, INC., et al., Defendants.
The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Edward Tidwell’s claims against Kaiser. Tidwell’s complaint enumerates twelve claims, each of which arises under state law. The claims relate to medical care that Kaiser provided to Tidwell’s daughter, who is now deceased. The Court lacks federal-question jurisdiction over all twelve claims because the claims do not arise under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction is also absent. Tidwell’s scattered citations to various federal statutes do not give the Court jurisdiction. Tidwell cites to several federal criminal statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1001, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206–07, but “as a private citizen, [he] lacks Article III standing to bring claims under . . . criminal statutes.” Ardalan v. McHugh, No. 13-CV-01138-LHK, 2013 WL 6212710, at *18 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2013). He cites to 26 U.S.C. § 501, an Internal Revenue Code provision governing…