Blunt v. Division of Worker's Compensation et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause no later than April 8, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to respond to this Order, this action will be dismissed. (Show Cause Response due by 4/8/2013.) Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on March 6, 2013. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GENORVAL BLUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
DIVISION OF WORKER’S
COMPENSATION, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV400 NAB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Under Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is
required to review all cases for subject matter jurisdiction and to dismiss them at any
time if jurisdiction is found to be lacking. Having reviewed the case, the Court will
direct plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed.
Plaintiff attempts to appeal an adverse decision of the Missouri Department of
Labor and Industrial Relations for denial of worker’s compensation benefits. This
Court, however, does not have the jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state
court decisions. Postma v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan, 74 F.3d 160, 162 (8th Cir. 1996).
The proper review for denial of worker’s compensation benefits by an administration
law judge in Missouri is to file an application for review with the Labor and Industrial
Relations Commission. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 287.470 et seq.

Moreover, the complaint is composed wholly of legal statements and is devoid
of any facts, which if proved, would entitle plaintiff to relief.
A court does not obtain subject-matter jurisdiction just because a
Plaintiff raises a federal question in his or her complaint. If the asserted
basis of federal jurisdiction is patently meritless, then dismissal for lack
of jurisdiction is appropriate. Because this is a facial rather than a
factual challenge to jurisdiction, [the court] determine[s] whether the
asserted jurisdictional basis is patently meritless by looking to the face
of the complaint and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the
Plaintiff.
Biscanin v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. 407 F.3d 905, 907 (8th Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted). The complaint is legally frivolous, and jurisdiction is lacking for this
reason as well.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall show cause no later than April
8, 2013, why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if plaintiff fails to respond to this Order,
this action will be dismissed.
Dated this 6th day of March, 2013.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-