Opinion
3:03-CV-2205-G
October 6, 2003
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The supplemental findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Type of case
Plaintiff brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se, and the Court has granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants are Danny Martin Oil Trust ("Danny Martin") and B.H. Miller Oil Company.
II. Background
Plaintiff states that in November, 2001, he was working for Defendant Danny Martin when he was involved in a truck accident. He states he told his employer that he needed medical attention, but his employer informed him that if he sought medical treatment he would be fired. Plaintiff states the truck was owned by B.H. Miller Oil Company.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That section provides in pertinent part:
The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ("Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal-(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit.").
Applying the screening procedures to Plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.
(a) Civil Rights
Plaintiff filed his complaint on a civil rights form pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To the extent that Plaintiff is alleging Defendants violated his civil rights, his complaint should be dismissed. To obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove two elements: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States; and (2) a deprivation of that right by a defendant acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 155 (1978). The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provides in part that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only that action which may be fairly attributed to the States. Shelley v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1, 13 (1948). The Fourteenth Amendment does not shield purely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Id.; see also Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 349 (1974); Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 169 (1970).
In this case, Plaintiff sues two nongovernmental Defendants. Plaintiff has failed to allege that these Defendants acted under color of state law. Further, Plaintiff fails to allege a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should be dismissed.
(b) State law claims
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). They "must presume that a suit lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking the federal forum." Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 993 (2001).
Plaintiff asserts no federal statutory or constitutional basis for this suit based on his claim for medical injuries. His claims appear to arise under state law. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over such claims in the absence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In this case, Plaintiff lists his address as Bonham, Texas. Defendant Danny Martin's address is listed as Richland, Texas, and Defendant B.H. Miller Oil Company's address is listed as Corsicana, Texas. Plaintiff therefore does not allege the diversity of citizenship necessary to proceed under § 1332. See Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803, 804 (5th Cir. 1991) (holding that "[t]he burden of proving that complete diversity exists rests upon the party who seeks to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction.").
Courts have a continuing obligation to examine the basis for jurisdiction. See MCG, Inc. v. Great W. Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990). The Court may sua sponte raise the jurisdictional issue at any time. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) requires that federal courts dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter." Because it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action should be dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
The Court recommends that Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. The Court further recommends that Plaintiff's remaining claims be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.