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)

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.