Opinion
Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-1991-D.
October 18, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the District Court's Order of Reference, filed September 22, 2004, this case was referred to this Court for determination of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction and for recommendation of dismissal should no jurisdiction be found. The Order of Reference also referred Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel for determination. On September 24, 2004, this Court entered a Notice of Deficiency and Order, requiring Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint identifying the basis for federal jurisdiction over this action, in compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was filed on October 5, 2004.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has filed an unspecified civil action against Defendant Texas Mutual Insurance Company, wherein he alleges he is entitled to restitution from Defendant for failure to reimburse Plaintiff for covered medical expenses. Plaintiff was injured on the job in January 1998, and received payments from Defendant from that date until August 2002. (Settlement Compl. at 1.) The parties' dispute was heard by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission at a contested case hearing. (Sec. Am. Compl. at 1.) Plaintiff seeks review of the outcome of that hearing. Id. It appears that Plaintiff did not appeal the outcome of the contested case hearing to the Commission's Appeals Panel or seek judicial review in Texas state court. Id.
II. JURISDICTION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Peoples Nat. Bank v. Office of Comptroller of Currency of U.S., 362 F.3d 333, 336 (5th Cir. 2004). Their power is limited to that power authorized by the Constitution and by statute. Id. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only where a question of federal law is involved or where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The party asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving it exists. Howery v. Allstate Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001).In this instance, despite opportunity to amend his complaint, Plaintiff asserts no federal statutory or constitutional basis for this suit. His claims appear to arise solely under state law. See TEX.LAB. CODE ANN. § 410.252 (requiring parties seeking judicial review of decisions by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission to file suit in the county of residence at the time of injury). Plaintiff's sole basis for asserting federal jurisdiction is his belief that he will not get a fair trial at the state level. (Sec. Am. Compl. at 1.) However, such a concern is insufficient to afford the federal courts jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff has not shown that his claims involve a question of federal law.
Federal courts have no jurisdiction over state law claims in the absence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff has not established the complete diversity of citizenship necessary to proceed under § 1332. See Stafford v. Mobile 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"). Therefore, federal jurisdiction over this action cannot be based on diversity jurisdiction.
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) requires federal courts to dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter." In this instance, it is clear that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Consequently the action should be dismissed.
III. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for the Appointment of Counsel. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the District Court summarily DISMISS Plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
SO RECOMMENDED.