Teshome v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
TEGEGN TESHOME, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § No. 3:25-cv-3524-E-BN
§
DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT, §
§
Defendant. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Tegegn Teshome filed a pro se complaint relating to payment of
workers compensation by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (“DART”). See Dkt. No. 3. United
States District Judge Ada Brown referred Teshome’s lawsuit to the undersigned
United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and a standing order of reference.
After reviewing the complaint, the undersigned questions whether there is
subject matter jurisdiction and, given the circumstances of this case, enters these
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation that the Court should
dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
These findings and conclusions provide Teshome notice as to the jurisdictional
deficiencies. And the ability to file objections to the undersigned’s recommendation
that this case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (as further explained below) offers
Teshome an opportunity to establish (if possible) that the Court does have subject
matter jurisdiction.
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
Legal Standards
“Jurisdiction is the power to say what the law is.” United States v. Willis, 76
F.4th 467, 479 (5th Cir. 2023). So consideration of “[j]urisdiction is always first.”
Louisiana v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 90 F.4th 461, 466 (5th Cir. 2024) (citation omitted).
And, because “‘[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing
‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute,’” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S.
251, 256 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994)), “subject-matter delineations must be policed by the courts on their own
initiative even at the highest level,” Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574,
583-84 (1999) (citations omitted).
Teshome chose to file this lawsuit in federal court and, by doing so, undertook
the burden to establish federal jurisdiction. See St. Paul Reinsurance Co. v.
Greenberg, 134 F.3d 1250, 1253 (5th Cir. 1998) (“The burden of establishing subject
matter jurisdiction in federal court rests on the party seeking to invoke it.” (cleaned
up)); Butler v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 762 F. App’x 193, 194 (5th Cir. 2019) (per
curiam) (“Assertions that are conclusory are insufficient to support an attempt to
establish subject-matter jurisdiction.” (cleaned up)).
And, if the party invoking federal jurisdiction fails to establish it, the lawsuit
must be dismissed. See FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
Because federal jurisdiction is not assumed, “the basis upon which jurisdiction
depends must be alleged affirmatively and distinctly and cannot be established
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
argumentatively or by mere inference.” Getty Oil Corp. v. Ins. Co. of N.A., 841 F.2d
1254, 1259 (5th Cir. 1988) (citing Ill. Cent. Gulf R. Co. v. Pargas, Inc., 706 F.2d 633,
636 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1983)); see also MidCap Media Fin., L.L.C. v. Pathway Data, Inc.,
929 F.3d 310, 313 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Because federal courts have limited jurisdiction,
parties must make ‘clear, distinct, and precise affirmative jurisdictional allegations’
in their pleadings.” (quoting Getty Oil, 841 F.2d at 1259)).
Under their limited jurisdiction, federal courts generally may only hear a case
if it involves a question of federal law or where diversity of citizenship exists between
the parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
Federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331 “exists when ‘a well-pleaded
complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the
plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question
of federal law.’” Borden v. Allstate Ins. Co., 589 F.3d 168, 172 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)); see also
In re Hot-Hed Inc., 477 F.3d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 2007) (“A federal question exists ‘if
there appears on the face of the complaint some substantial, disputed question of
federal law.’” (quoting Carpenter v. Wichita Falls Indep. Sch. Dist., 44 F.3d 362, 366
(5th Cir. 1995))).
The “‘creation’ test … accounts for the vast bulk of suits under federal law.”
Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257 (citation omitted). But
“a federal court [is also] able to hear claims recognized under state law
that nonetheless turn on substantial questions of federal law, and thus
justify resort to the experience, solicitude, and hope of uniformity that a
federal forum offers on federal issues.” That is to say, “federal
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is:
(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4)
capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-
state balance approved by Congress.”
Perez v. Se. SNF, L.L.C., No. 21-50399, 2022 WL 987187, at *3 (5th Cir. Mar. 31,
2022) (per curiam) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg.,
545 U.S. 308, 312 (2005), then Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258).
And, in cases invoking jurisdiction under Section 1332, each plaintiff’s
citizenship must be diverse from each defendant’s citizenship, and the amount in
controversy must exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (b).
This amount “is determined by the amount of damages or the value of the
property that is the subject of the action.” Celestine v. TransWood, Inc., 467 F. App’x
317, 319 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (citation omitted). “The required demonstration
concerns what the plaintiff is claiming (and thus the amount in controversy between
the parties), not whether the plaintiff is likely to win or be awarded everything he
seeks.” Robertson v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 814 F.3d 236, 240 (5th Cir. 2015) (cleaned
up). That is, “[t]he amount in controversy is not proof of the amount the plaintiff will
recover but an estimate of the amount that will be put at issue in the course of the
litigation. The amount is measured by the value of the object of the litigation.”
Durbois v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. of Holders of AAMES Mortg. Inv. Tr.
20054 Mortg. Backed Notes, 37 F.4th 1053, 1057 (5th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
“When a plaintiff invokes federal-court jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s amount-in-
controversy allegation is accepted if made in good faith.” Dart Cherokee Basin
Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 87 (2014). More specifically, “unless the
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
law gives a different rule, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is
apparently made in good faith.” Greenberg, 134 F.3d at 1253 (cleaned up).
And, “[f]or diversity purposes, state citizenship is synonymous with domicile.
A change in domicile requires: ‘(1) physical presence at the new location and (2) an
intention to remain there indefinitely.’” Dos Santos v. Belmere Ltd. P’ship, 516 F.
App’x 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see also Preston v.
Tenet Healthsystem Mem’l Med. Ctr., 485 F.3d 793, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2007) (“In
determining diversity jurisdiction, the state where someone establishes his domicile
serves a dual function as his state of citizenship.... Domicile requires the
demonstration of two factors: residence and the intention to remain.” (citing Stine v.
Moore, 213 F.2d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 1954))); SXSW v. Fed. Ins. Co., 83 F.4th 405, 407
(5th Cir. 2023) (“‘The difference between citizenship and residency is a frequent source
of confusion.’ For natural persons, § 1332 citizenship is determined by domicile, which
requires residency plus an intent to make the place of residency one’s permanent
home. An allegation of residency alone ‘does not satisfy the requirement of an
allegation of citizenship.’” (emphasis in original; citations omitted)).
“The basis for diversity jurisdiction must be ‘distinctly and affirmatively
alleged.’” Dos Santos, 516 F. App’x at 403 (quoting Mullins v. TestAmerica, Inc., 564
F.3d 386, 397 (5th Cir. 2009)). For example, “an allegation of residency alone does not
satisfy the requirement of an allegation of citizenship.” J.A. Maters Invs. v.
Beltramini, 117 F.4th 321, 322 (5th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (citation omitted). And “a
‘failure to adequately allege the basis for diversity jurisdiction mandates dismissal.’”
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 6 -
Dos Santos, 516 F. App’x at 403 (quoting Stafford v. Mobil Oil Corp., 945 F.2d 803,
805 (5th Cir. 1991)).
Analysis
Teshome alleges that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case.
See Dkt. No. 3 at 3. But he does not identify any federal statutes or provisions of the
United States Constitution that are at issue to explain the basis for federal question
jurisdiction. See id. The complaint alleges that DART stopped Teshome’s workers
compensation payments and attaches forms and decisions from the Texas
Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, but does not identify
any federal claim. See generally id.
And Teshome does not allege a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Instead, it
appears from the complaint that Teshome and DART are both citizens of Texas.
Because no federal claim or basis for diversity jurisdiction is set out in the
complaint, the lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss this lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections
within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or
recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID <pageID>

- 7 -
specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation
where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by
reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure
to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or
adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: December 30, 2025
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03524-E-BN Document 5 Filed 12/30/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID <pageID>