Moss v. T.W.C.C

Full title: JAMES LOUIS MOSS, Plaintiff, v. T.W.C.C., Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jan 12, 2005

No. 3:04-CV-2556-N (N.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2005)

Opinion

No. 3:04-CV-2556-N.

January 12, 2005

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PAUL STICKNEY, 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 workers compensation benefits. He is proceeding pro se, and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendant is the Texas Workers Compensation Commission ("TWCC").

Factual background:

On November 29, 2004, Plaintiff filed this complaint arguing the TWCC judge downgraded his disability rating in an attempt to defraud him of workers compensation disability payments. He also states his attorney failed to inform him of the TWCC rules and regulations. 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 (5^th 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 disability 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 Grand Prairie, Texas. The Defendant is an agency of the state of 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 (5^th 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 (5^th 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.