Santiago-Aguilera v. Davis-Young Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 3 Complaint. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/8/2016. (nms)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JORGE SANTIAGO-AGUILERA, : Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 16-304-RGA DAVIS-YOUNG ASSOCIATES, etal., Defendants .. Jorge Santiago-Aguilera, New Castle, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION July~ , 2016 Wilmington, Delaware ~,~ U.S~istrict ANDREWS, Judge: · Plaintiff Jorge Santiago-Aguilera filed this action seeking compensation as a result of a work related injury. He appears pro se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (D.I. 5). The Court proceeds to review and screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff filed an almost identical complaint in this Court in Santiago-Aguilera v. State of Delaware, Civ. No. 15-1076-RGA, which was dismissed on February 8, .2016 for lack of subject matterjurisdiction. See Civ. No. 15-1076-RGA at D. I. 8'. The only difference between Civ. No. 15-1076-RGA and the instant case is that the State of Delaware Department of Labor was named as a defendant in No. 15-1076-RGA,_but it is not named as a defendant in this case. Other thanthat, the allegations are identical. The Court refersto its·analysis in Civ. No. 15-1076-RGA at D.I. 7 and will dismiss this Complaint for the same reasons: There is no basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court has no jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims of injury while in the employ of DavisYoung, as the exclusive remedy for Plaintiff's work related claims lies under the Delaware Workers' Compensation Act, see 19 Del. C. §§ 2301-2391, and the requisites for diversity jurisdiction have not been met, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1 ). Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Amendment is futile. An appropriate order will be entered.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?