Rios v. Board of Review, Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA)

Filing 8

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for the appointment of counsel shall be terminated as moot.[Copy of Order mailed to plaintiff on 3/9/2017.](PSSA, 3) Modified on 3/9/2018 (PSSA, 3).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
NATALIE JOY RIOS,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
18-10435-WGY

BOARD OF REVIEW, MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT
ASSISTANCE,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.

March 7, 2018

For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this
action without prejudice.
I.

Background
Pro se litigant Natalie Joy Rios, who resides in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, brings this action in which she challenges the
decision of the Board of Review of the Massachusetts Department
of Unemployment Assistance to dismiss her claims for
unemployment benefits.

According to Rios, she was working full-

time until she was unlawfully discharged in September 2017.
applied for unemployment benefits the same month and began to

She

receive partial unemployment benefits.

However, in January

2018, the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance
found that she was “indefinitely ineligible” for unemployment
benefits.

II.

Discussion
A court always has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into

its own jurisdiction.
(1st Cir. 2004).

See McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5

Upon a preliminary review of the complaint,

the Court concludes that the Rios cannot bring this action in
federal court.
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
generally precludes suits against a State in federal court
unless the State has waived is immunity or Congress has
overridden it.

See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519

U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14
(1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam).
Here, the defendant is an agency of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

Rios does not identify, nor can the Court

discern, and claim for which the defendant’s Eleventh Amendment
immunity has been waived or overridden.

Accordingly, the

Eleventh Amendment precludes the Court—a federal court—from
exercising jurisdiction over this action.
Although defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes
judicial review of Rios’s claim by this Court, it does not
preclude Rios from seeking relief in the state court.

Under

Massachusetts law, a person may obtain judicial review of the
decision of the Board of Review of the Massachusetts Department
of Unemployment Assistance “by commencing within thirty days of
2

the date of mailing of such decision, a civil action in the
district court within the judicial district in which he lives,
or is or was last employed, or has his usual place of business.”
M.G.L. ch. 151A, § 42 para. 1.

“District court,” as used in

this statute, refers to the state district court, not the
federal district court. 1
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for the
appointment of counsel shall be terminated as moot.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young_____________
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

A list of the state district courts may be found at
https://www.mass.gov/orgs/district-court/locations (last visited
Mar. 7, 2018).
3