Rubio v. Dist. of Columbia

1

YASMANI GURRI RUBIO, Plaintiff, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 23-719 (RDM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 12, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RANDOLPH D. MOSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Yasmani Gurri Rubio, proceeding pro se, commenced this action against the District of Columbia Department of Human Services (“DHS”) on March 16, 2023 alleging that the agency acted unlawfully when it “canceled and violated [his] health insurance policy without issuing prior notice” and when it denied Plaintiff “emergency medical coverage for prescription drugs,” following Plaintiff's exposure to the human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”). Dkt. 1 at 1, 5 (Compl.). Seven months later, Plaintiff amended his complaint, dropping DHS as a named party and adding as defendants the District of Columbia and three official capacity defendants: D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, Laura Green Zeilinger, Director of DHS, and Wayne Turnage, Director of the D.C. Department of Health Care Finance. Dkt. 13-2 at 2-3 (FAC). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 42 U.S.C § 1983 by, among other things, cancelling his “medical coverage” without providing him with the due process required by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Id. at 3-4 (FAC).^[1] He seeks roughly $128 million in damages. Id. at 5 (FAC). To date, only the District of Columbia has appeared.^[2]

Now before the Court is the District's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 22, as well as Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 26, motion for a hearing on summary judgment, Dkt. 35, motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 38, and motion for recusal, Dkt. 42. For the reasons that follow, the Court will GRANT the District's motion to dismiss, Dkt. 22, without prejudice and will appoint counsel to represent Plaintiff in this matter going forward. Given that posture, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, Dkt. 38, without prejudice. The Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 26, and motion for a hearing on summary judgment, Dkt. 35, without prejudice. Finally, the Court will DENY Plaintiff's motion for recusal, Dkt. 42.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

For purposes of resolving the District's pending motion to dismiss, the Court will accept Plaintiff's factual allegations as true, see Am. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 642 F.3d 1137, 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and will consider those allegations along with “any documents attached to or incorporated into the complaint, matters of which the court may take judicial notice, and matters of public record,” United States ex rel. Head v. Kane Co., 798 F.Supp.2d 186, 193 (D.D.C. 2011). In addition, because Plaintiff is currently proceeding pro se, the Court will also consider other documents that he has filed in the case, see Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (per curiam), although his complaint must still “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ho v. Garland, 2024 WL 3260764, at *2 (D.C. Cir. July 2, 2024) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff is a Cuban refugee and lawful permanent resident of the United States. Dkt. 441 at 8 (D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) Final Order); Dkt. 44-1 at 25. Plaintiff appears to allege that, starting on May 1, 2022, he was a covered beneficiary of the D.C. Healthcare Alliance. Dkt. 44-1 at 8 (OAH Final Order); see also Dkt. 26-1 at 55 (medical benefits card). The D.C. Healthcare Alliance is “a locally-funded program designed to provide medical assistance to District residents who are not eligible for Medicaid.” Healthcare Alliance, Department of Health Care Finance-DHCF, https://dhcfdc.gov/service/health-care-aHiance (last visited July 12, 2024).^[3]

On October 16, 2022, Plaintiff was working as a Lyft driver in the District when he was assaulted by a passenger. Dkt. 26-1 at 25 (Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission claim form); Dkt. 26-1 at 30 (Virginia Victims Fund claim form); Dkt. 26-1 at 24 (Alexandria Police Department offense report confirming that on October 16, 2022 at 2:54 a.m., Plaintiff reported that he was “assaulted by an unknown white male while transporting him to a location via Lyft”). Plaintiff characterizes the assault as a hate crime motivated by his sexual orientation. See Dkt. 26-1 at 25 (Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission claim form); Dkt. 26-1 at 27, 30 (Virginia Victims Fund claim form). The day after the incident, on October 17, 2022, Plaintiff went to the Medstar Washington Hospital Emergency Clinic to seek medical care for injuries he had sustained during the assault. See Dkt. 13-2 at 4 (FAC). At the emergency clinic, he learned for the first time that his medical benefits had been terminated effective August 31, 2022, see Dkt. 44-1 at 8 (OAH Final Order), and he alleges that this termination occurred “without notification,” Dkt. 13-2 at 4 (FAC); Dkt. 26 at 10-11; see also Dkt. 44-1 at 11 (MedStar letter).

At the time that Plaintiff first learned that his benefits had been terminated, he was experiencing “extreme eye pain of his left eye, loss of vision, burning and seeing flashes of light due to trauma he experienced.” Dkt. 44-1 at 11 (MedStar letter). The clinic medical staff “made attempts” to reinstate his insurance, including by “ma[king] calls,” but “it was not possible” to do so. Dkt. 13-2 at 4 (FAC). Plaintiff alleges that the D.C. representative “on the phone” claimed that the District had notified him of the termination of his benefits, but, according to Plaintiff, that assertion was untrue. See Dkt. 26 at 11. Because Plaintiff did not receive medical treatment, he also “could not provide evidence [presumably to law enforcement] of [the] physical harm” he experienced from the assault, “when [he] was a victim of a crime.” Dkt. 44-1 at 3 (Rubio Decl.). In addition to his inability to obtain emergency care in October 2022, Plaintiff further contends that, without medical benefits, he was unable “to receive continued HIV treatment, [and] Prep after an HIV exposure.” Dkt. 13-2 at 4 (FAC).^[4] With the help of a non- profit community health center, the Whitman-Walker Clinic, Plaintiff later confirmed that his medical benefits had, in fact, been terminated on August 31, 2022. See Dkt. 44-1 at 4 (Rubio Decl.); Dkt. 44-1 at 8 (OAH Final Order); Dkt. 44-1 at 17.

After an initial unsuccessful attempt, see Dkt. 26 at 12, on February 27, 2023, Plaintiff met with a DHS supervisor who, “upon seeing that [his] medical coverage had indeed been illegally canceled . . . proceeded to restore it,” Dkt. 44-1 at 3 (Rubio Decl.). Plaintiff requested and received a letter dated February 27, 2023 confirming that he was covered by DHS medical benefits. Dkt. 26 at 12-13; Dkt. 44-1 at 13 (DHS letter). The DHS supervisor informed Plaintiff that “there was no need for [him] to request a hearing as the restoration of [his] coverage would cover past bills.” Dkt. 44-1 at 3 (Rubio Decl.). Plaintiff nevertheless continued to pursue an administrative hearing because, in his words, “perhaps [the restoration would] cover[] past bills, but it did not cover the danger I was put in, nor did it cover medical services not provided, or treatments not received, among other things.” Id. (Rubio Decl.). Plaintiff, accordingly, “requested a Fair Hearing because [he] disagree[d] with the agency action taken on [his] Medical Assistance (MA) benefits effective August 31, 2022.” Dkt. 44-1 at 21 (OAH letter).

On March 13, 2023, Plaintiff attended an “Administrative Hearing scheduled by the Office of Administrative Hearings,” but “no one from the DHS appeared.” Dkt. 44-1 at 3 (Rubio Decl.); see also Dkt. 44-1 at 7-8 (OAH Final Order) (“[N]o one called in on behalf of DHS.”). After the hearing, Plaintiff's administrative case was dismissed without prejudice because, as explained in the final order:

Petitioner does not claim that he has incurred health expenses that D.C. Healthcare Alliance will not cover. And, as an administrative law judge, I do not have authority to award Petitioner compensation for having not received necessary health care following the cancellation of his coverage.

Dkt. 44-1 at 8 (OAH Final Order); see also id. at 9 (OAH Final Order).^[5]

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff commenced the instant action. Dkt. 1 (Compl.). He declined to attend a subsequent D.C. administrative hearing held on March 29, 2023, Dkt. 44-1 at 21, submitting that the District “did not have the right to be absent from a hearing and [then] schedule another one,” Dkt. 44-1 at 4 (Rubio Decl.), and indicating that he would, instead, pursue civil litigation, see Dkt. 26 at 14.

Before this Court, Plaintiff does not specify what, if any, adverse medical effects he suffered due to his lack of medical benefits on October 17, 2022, when he visited the Medstar emergency clinic. He merely asserts that his “[i]njuries could not be counted because [he] did not receive medical attention.” Dkt. 13-2 at 5 (FAC). Plaintiff does allege, however, that he suffered “[e]motional and psychological damage.” Id. (FAC). He further alleges that, as a result of his erroneously terminated benefits, certain medical bills fell into collection and “will be on [his] credit report for 7 years.” Id. at 4 (FAC).^[6]

B. Procedural History

The procedural history of this case is unusually complicated for its early stage. After Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in March 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Min. Order (Mar. 28, 2023). The Court subsequently ordered the Deputy Clerk to issue summonses and to “cause service to be effected by the United States...