ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re: ECF No. 11]

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re: ECF No. 6]

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

These cases both involve the plaintiff Nick O'Rourke's challenges to medical care that he received at Petaluma Health Center in 2014. (See Complaints, both at ECF No. 1.1) Mr. O'Rourke filed claims in small claims court, naming Petaluma Health Center and three employees in one case and naming one employee in the second case. (See id.) The United States removed both cases to federal court and moved to (1) substitute in as the sole defendant on the ground that Petaluma Health Center and its employees are deemed federal employees for the medical care that they provide at the center and (2) dismiss the cases without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because Mr. O'Rourke has not exhausted his administrative remedies under the Federal Torts Claims Act ("FTCA"). (See O'Rourke 1 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 11; O'Rourke 2 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6.) The motions are set for hearing on August 20, 2015. Mr. O'Rourke has not filed any opposition or statement of non-opposition to the United States's motions, and he has not responded to several clerk's notices asking him to consent or decline the undersigned's jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the court resets the motion hearing to August 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. and orders Mr. O'Rourke to show cause why his cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

For Mr. O'Rourke's edification, the court provides the following additional context. The United States filed certifications that the defendants are federal employees. (See O'Rourke 1 Torres Decl., ECF No. 12; O'Rourke 2 Torres Decl., ECF No. 7.) For the medical claims at issue, the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for torts against federal employees acting in the scope of their employment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2679(b)(1). Before filing suit, a plaintiff must present his or her administrative claim to the appropriate agency within two years of the incident, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), and the agency must either "finally den[y]" his or her claim or fail to arrive at a "final disposition of [his or her] claim within six months after it is filed," see 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a). "The claim requirement of section 2675 is jurisdictional in nature and may not be waived." Burns v. United States, 764 F.2d 722, 723 (9th Cir. 1985). If a plaintiff does not present his claims to the agency, the district court cannot assert subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's FTCA claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a); McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 111-12 (1993); Burns, 764 F.2d at 723.

Here, the United States asserts that Mr. O'Rourke did not file administrative claims with the Department of Health and Human Services. (See O'Rourke 1 Torres Decl., ECF No. 12; O'Rourke 2 Torres Decl., ECF No. 7.) If he has not, then the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the claims. He must do so before the court can consider his claims.

Under the circumstances, the court directs Mr. O'Rourke to appear at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Courtroom C, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California on Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. to show cause why his cases should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Alternatively, Mr. O'Rourke may submit a statement of non-opposition. The court also reminds Mr. O'Rourke to submit his consent or declination to the undersigned's jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.