Opinion
No. 05-CV-0211A.
June 27, 2005
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Plaintiff Edgardo Maldonado has filed this pro se action claiming that defendant New York State Workers' Compensation Board has failed to provide him benefits in a timely manner and that it provided him inadequate advice when he sought benefits. (Docket No. 1). He has requested both permission to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) and appointment of counsel (Docket No. 3). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's request to proceed as a poor person is granted, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
Because plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), plaintiff is granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) of 28 U.S.C. provides that the Court shall dismiss a case in which in forma pauperis status has been granted if, at any time, the Court determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
In evaluating the complaint, the Court must accept as true all factual allegations and must draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor. See King v. Simpson, 189 F.3d 284, 287 (2d Cir. 1999). Dismissal is not appropriate "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
Based on its evaluation of the complaint, the Court finds that plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims and, even if it did, plaintiff's claim against the New York State Workers Compensation Board is barred under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Additionally, because the Court finds that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, the request for counsel must be denied.
While plaintiff's complaint alleges nothing more than that the New York State Workers Compensation Board has delayed providing him benefits and that he is requesting his "settlement" from the Board, which he assumes he is due, it is clear that what plaintiff is seeking in this matter is for this Court to sit in judgment and review the action or inaction of a state administrative agency. He does not invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction in any way nor does he allege that he was unlawfully discriminated against or that his federal constitutional rights were violated in some way. He simply alleges that he was denied his New York State Workers' Compensation benefits and that he wants a settlement of his claim. Accordingly, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim to what is, in effect, a request for equitable or injunctive relief against the New York State Workers Compensation Board, and the complaint must be dismissed. See United Food Commercial Workers Union v. CenterMark Properties Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994) ("[w]here jurisdiction is lacking, . . . dismissal is mandatory."); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(h)(3).
Even assuming plaintiff's complaint could be construed to raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and to allege that plaintiff's constitutional rights have been violated in some manner by the defendant, see, e.g., Tapia-Ortiz v. Doe, 171 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir. 1999) (the pleadings of pro se litigants should be "construed liberally"), which the instant complaint does not so allege, said claim must be dismissed because the New York State Workers Compensation Board is entitled to immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Pennhurst State School Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100 (1984); see also Lipofsky v. Steingut, 86 F.3d 15 (2d Cir. 1996) (State Insurance Fund is a state agency immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 971 (1996).
Lastly, even assuming a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims, this Court, based on the principles of abstention, would decline to entertain jurisdiction over plaintiff's request that this Court intervene in a state administrative proceeding and order that he be provided workers' compensation benefits. See Gyadu v. Workers' Compensation Comm'n, 930 F.Supp. 738, 752-53 (D.Conn. 1996) (declining to exercise subject matter jurisdiction and dismissing plaintiff's claims to equitable relief against Connecticut Worker's Compensation Board for Board's alleged failure to provide the type of benefits plaintiff believed he was entitled), aff'd 129 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 1997).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and, for the reasons discussed above, the complaint is dismissed and his motion for appointment of counsel is denied.The Court hereby certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed.2d 21 (1962). Further requests to proceed on appeal as a poor person should be directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in accordance with Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
ORDER
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and his motion for appointment of counsel is denied;
FURTHER, that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; and
FURTHER, that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals as a poor person is denied.
SO ORDERED.