Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-2562-G
March 19, 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 the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is currently incarcerated in the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division. On November 25, 2002, he filed the instant civil action against Ursula Harris of Colonial Insurance, located in Dallas, Texas. He complains about the handling of a claim for insurance. In his complaint, plaintiff appears to rely on "Title 110 A. Article 6252-19 Tort Claim Act" as the basis for this action. However, in answer to a Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire (MJQ), he concedes that that statute "does not apply to [his] situation." ( See Answer to Question 2 of MJQ.) He clarifies that his claims are "against a private insurance corporation, and not against a government entity." ( Id.) He questions whether he "need [s] to file this claim in state court rather than federal court, since this is basically a tort claim." ( Id.)
II. JURISDICTION
"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, 122 S.Ct. 459 (2001).
In this instance, plaintiff asserts no federal statutory or constitutional basis for this suit against Ms. Ursula or Colonial Insurance based on the handling of his claim for insurance. His claims appear to arise under state tort law. Federal courts have no jurisdiction over such claims in the absence of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff does not allege the complete 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.; Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 187 F.3d 452, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999). Fed.R.Civ.P. 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.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court DISMISS plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation on plaintiff by mailing a copy to him. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written objections within ten (10) 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. 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 Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) ( en banc).