Opinion
3:03-CV-0784-K
April 24, 2003
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Plaintiff's complaint alleges claims against the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, her former employer Stein Mart, Inc., her former employer's CEO, and her former employer's insurer. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sustained an on-the-job injury as a result of which she filed a worker's compensation claim which was denied by the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission on December 17, 2002, which was affirmed by the Appeals Panel on March 7, 2003.
Before addressing the complaint, the court must first examine the threshold question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. That is an issue of paramount concern, and should be addressed, sua sponte if necessary, at the inception of any federal action. System Pipe Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovsky, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001); Moody v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 902, 904 (5th Cir. 1988).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Therefore, a complaint must identify the basis on which jurisdiction is invoked. The present complaint asserts diversity of citizenship as a basis for jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, this basis for federal court jurisdiction is fatally defective.
A State is not a "citizen" for purposes of diversity of jurisdiction.E.g. see Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 718, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 1800 (1973). It is equally clear that the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission is an arm of the State of Texas. See Chapt. 402, Texas Labor Code and 28 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 142.1-142.20. "[A] State cannot be made a party defendant in a federal district court by a private litigant based upon diversity of citizenship. . . . Moreover, suits against state agencies are considered suits against the state, except where the agency is endowed with such a separate and distinct existence that its activities are not those of the State." Johnson v. Texas Dep't of Corrections, 373 F. Supp. 1108, 1109 (S.D. Tex. 1974). See also State of Louisiana v. Sprint Communications Co., 892 F. Supp. 145, 147 (M.D. La. 1995) (holding that the presence of the State of Louisiana as a party defeats diversity jurisdiction, because a state is not a citizen, thereby precluding complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants in a case).
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.
NOTICE
In the event that you wish to object to this recommendation, you are hereby notified that you must file your written objections within ten days after being served with a copy of this recommendation. Pursuant toDouglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), a party's failure to file written objections to these proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within such ten-day period may bar a de novo determination by the district judge of any finding of fact or conclusion of law and shall bar such party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected to proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law accepted by the district court.