Blunt v. Division of Worker's Compensation et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 4/1/2013. (RAK)

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. I have given notice to plaintiff that subject
matter is lacking, and plaintiff has responded. Plaintiff’s response fails to show why
this action should not be promptly dismissed.
In this action, 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 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 therefore, jurisdiction is lacking for
this reason as well.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 1st day of April, 2013.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-2-