Opinion
3:02-CV-2297-N
November 5, 2002
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: Type of Case: This is an unspecified civil rights action.
Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of Dallas, Texas. Defendants are Churchill Evaluation Centers and Dr. Jean Francis Coria. The court has not issued process in this case.
Statement of Case: The complaint alleges that on October 21, 2002, Dr. Coria refused to see Plaintiff for his 10:30 a.m. appointment, which had been scheduled by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, because he arrived fifteen minutes late. According to Plaintiff, Dr. Coria's next appointment was for 12:00 p.m. with an Hispanic patient. Plaintiff states that Defendants failed to give him notice of Churchill Evaluation Centers' tardy policy and of its correct address, specifically that it is located in a building called Touch Tell Communications. He further states that their refusal to see see him amounts to "discrimination [and] a 14th Amendment violation." He requests compensatory damages for the income that he lost as a result of the missed appointment.
Findings and Conclusions: 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 concem, 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). Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal court jurisdiction requires (1) a federal question arising under the Constitution, a federal law or a treaty, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) complete diversity of citizenship between adverse parties and at least $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The complaint relates to a missed appointment scheduled by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission; it does not implicate any federal statutory or constitutional rights, even though Plaintiff asserts in a conclusory fashion that he was discriminated under the 14th Amendment. Moreover, insofar as he relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not alleged a deprivation under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (a plaintiff must allege two elements to raise a claim under § 1983: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) a deprivation of that right by the defendant acting under color of state law). Neither Dr. Coria nor Churchill Evaluation Centers appear to be state actors.
Lastly, Plaintiff cannot rely on diversity of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis It is clear from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff and the Defendants are citizens of the state of Texas.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.