Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-150-H.
July 14, 2003.
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 this court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge follow:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Parties:
Plaintiff has filed this action for recovery of medical benefits. He is proceeding pro se, and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant is the Dallas North Tollway.
Factual background:
On January 23, 2003, Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging he was injured while working for Defendant in 1993. (Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Answer 1). He states that as a result of this injury, he was granted workers compensation benefits, which included life-time medical benefits. ( Id.). He states that he is not receiving these medical benefits.
Discussion:
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 the handling of his state workers compensation benefits. 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 Dallas, Texas. The Defendant is the Dallas North Tollway, located in Dallas, Texas. Plaintiff also lists the address of an insurance claims administrator in Austin, 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 this case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a true copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on the parties. Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must serve and file written objections within ten days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation shall bar that party from a de novo determination by the District Court. See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 150, (1985). Additionally, any failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en-banc).