Opinion
NO. 3-03-CV-1336-K.
July 15, 2003.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is an unspecified civil action brought by Plaintiff Carolyn A. Moore against Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company. On June 16, 2003, plaintiff tendered a pro se complaint to the district clerk and filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in her pauper's affidavit indicates that she lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. Written interrogatories were then sent to plaintiff in order to obtain additional information about the factual basis of this suit. See Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181 (5th Cir. 1981). Plaintiff filed her interrogatory answers with the district clerk on July 10, 2003. The court now determines that this case should be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.
Plaintiff filed a claim with the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission after sustaining a back injury at work. Relying on the findings of medical experts retained by the insurance carrier, Zurich American, the Commission gave plaintiff a "zero" impairment rating and suspended her benefits. Plaintiff now challenges this decision in federal court. As relief, plaintiff seeks a five or ten percent impairment rating and damages of at least $50,000.
A.
The court must initially examine the basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal district courts have jurisdiction over: (1) federal questions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; and (2) civil actions where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states or foreign nations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 1332. A party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must prove that jurisdiction is proper. See Boudreau v. United States, 53 F.3d 81, 82 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 771 (1996).
B.
Plaintiff alleges no federal constitutional or statutory basis for her claim involving the denial of worker's compensation benefits. Therefore, the only basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship. Assuming arguendo that plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states, federal diversity jurisdiction still is not proper because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. When asked to specify the relief sought in this lawsuit, plaintiff responded:
Such a claim arises solely under Texas law. See TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.251, et seq. (Vernon 2003).
I am seeking to receive compensation for this injury concerning the impairment rating by my doctors 10% at the most or at least a 5% impairment rating and relief for the time I've been off work due to the injury. I am totaling that compensation to at least $50,000.
( Spears Quest. #4) (emphasis added). This allegation, presumably made in good faith, shows that the amount in controversy requirement has not been satisfied. See Acosta v. Amoco Oil Co., 978 F. Supp. 703,705 n. 5 (S.D. Tex. 1997), citing St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289, 58 S.Ct. 586, 590, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1938). Consequently, this case must be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff's complaint should be summarily dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The disposition of this case does not preclude plaintiff from seeking a review of the compensation award in Texas state court.