Reyes v. Kansas Department of Labor, Board of Review et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHRISTOPHER REYES,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 25-1243-JWB
HEARTLAND VETERANS NETWORK and
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
BOARD OF REVIEW,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on Heartland Veterans Networks’ motion to dismiss. (Doc.
7.) The motion is fully briefed and ripe for decision. (Docs. 9, 10.) The motion is GRANTED
for the reasons stated herein.
I. 	Facts
On October 6, 2025, Christopher Reyes (“Plaintiff”) filed a petition for judicial review in
the 18th Judicial District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, seeking review of Defendant Kansas
Department of Labor, Board of Review’s (the “KDOL Board of Review”) final decision on
Plaintiff’s unemployment insurance claim. (Doc. 4 at 1.) Plaintiff’s sole claim for relief is under
the Kansas Judicial Review Act (K.S.A. § 77-601 et seq.) (hereinafter “KJRA”). 	(Id. at 1–2.)
Specifically, Plaintiff asks the court to “review the final decision of the Kansas Department of
Labor, Board of Review . . . regarding his unemployment insurance claim.” 	(Id. at 1.) 	In the
petition, Plaintiff named the KDOL Board of Review and the Heartland Veterans Network as
Defendants. 	(Id.) 	On October 30, 2025, Heartland Veterans Network (hereinafter “Defendant
Case 6:25-cv-01243-JWB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 5

2
Heartland”) removed the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. (Doc. 1.)1 	Defendant Heartland is
“one of 18 Veteran Integrated Service Networks (VISN) across the country,” that specifically
covers 	Kansas. 	See 	Veterans 	Health 	Administration 	– 	VISN 	15,
https://department.va.gov/integrated-service-networks/visn-15/ (last visited Nov. 17, 2025). The
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, which is an agency of the United States, is responsible for
these 18 networks of responsibility. Id. The following week, Defendant Heartland filed the instant
motion seeking dismissal of the claim against it. (Doc. 7.)
II. 	Analysis
Defendant Heartland argues that Plaintiff’s claims against it should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (Id. at 5), or for failing to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted under 12(b)(6). (Id. at 8.) Because the court does not
have subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Heartland, there is no
need to address its 12(b)(6) argument.
“Different standards apply to a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule
12(b)(6).” Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159, 1167 (10th Cir. 2012). When the
court is faced with a motion invoking both Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), the court must first
determine that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy before reviewing the merits
of the case under Rule 12(b)(6). Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). Because federal courts
are courts of limited jurisdiction, a presumption exists against jurisdiction, and “the burden of
establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).
1 42 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) authorizes removal to federal court when a civil action is filed against the United States of
America, an agency of the United States, or any officer of the United States.
Case 6:25-cv-01243-JWB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 5

3
Defendant Heartland argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
claim against it pursuant to the derivative jurisdiction doctrine because Congress has not
authorized Plaintiff to file suit against the United States under the KJRA. (Doc. 7 at 5–7.)
The derivative jurisdiction doctrine bars a federal court from exercising subject matter
jurisdiction over a case that is removed from state court to federal court when the state court was
lacking subject matter jurisdiction. See Gentry-Smith v. Saul, No. 19-CV-04055-EFM, 2019 WL
6117966, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 18, 2019). Under the derivative jurisdiction doctrine, a federal court
cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction even if it could have had the plaintiff initially filed the
case in federal court. 	See id. 	Hence, the derivative jurisdiction doctrine will preclude subject
matter jurisdiction in cases where (1) a state court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, and
(2) a defendant removes the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. These elements are met
in the instant matter.
As an initial matter, “sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies
from suit.” 	Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 260 (1999) (quotation omitted)
(emphasis added). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, commonly known as the VA, is a
cabinet-level federal agency. 	See Francis v. Shinn, No. CV 22-02071-PHX-JAT (DMF), 2022
WL 17537768, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 8, 2022) (“The Veteran’s Administration is a federal agency.”).
A component of that federal agency is the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) which is the
largest integrated health care system in the United States and is tasked with “provid[ing] complete
medical and hospital service for the medical care and treatment of veterans.” 38 U.S.C. § 7301(b).
In fulfilling this mandate, the VHA has created an internal management layer that divided the U.S.
into 18 regional systems of care that manage and coordinate VA healthcare facilities and services
Case 6:25-cv-01243-JWB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 5

4
across the U.S.2 One such regional system is the Heartland Veterans Network, which covers the
state of Kansas. Id. Accordingly, in the context of sovereign immunity, a suit against Defendant
Heartland is a suit against the United States. See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 268 F.3d 898, 901 (9th
Cir.2001) (“Suits against the EPA, as against any agency of the United States, are barred by
sovereign immunity, unless there has been a specific waiver of that immunity.”); see also FDIC v.
Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994) (stating that sovereign immunity shields federal agencies from
suit).
Here, the 18th Judicial District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas, does not have subject
matter jurisdiction over the claims brought against Defendant Heartland because the United States
has not waived its sovereign immunity. 	A state court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a
claim against the United States for which sovereign immunity has not been waived.” Iowa Tribe
Of Kansas & Nebraska v. Salazar, 607 F.3d 1225, 1232 (10th Cir. 2010). 	Any waiver of
“sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S.
187, 192 (1996). 	Plaintiff has not identified any federal statute under which the United States
waived sovereign immunity as to his claim. Plaintiff brought the instant action under the KJRA.
(Doc. 4 at 1.) 	Under the KJRA, a state district court has jurisdiction to review Employment
Security Board decisions. K.S.A. § 77-609(a). The Kansas state legislature cannot confer subject
matter jurisdiction to federal district courts; that authority rests solely in the hands of Congress.
See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 452 (2004). This court declines to infer that Congress has
waived the United States’ sovereign immunity under the KJRA. Accordingly, the District Court
of Sedgwick County does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Defendant Heartland.
2 See About VHA, U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., https://www.va.gov/health/aboutVHA.asp (last visited Nov. 17, 2025).
Case 6:25-cv-01243-JWB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 5

5
Second, Defendant Heartland removed the claims against it to federal court under 28
U.S.C. § 1442. (Doc. 1.) Therefore, the derivative jurisdiction doctrine precludes this court from
exercising jurisdiction over the claim against Defendant Heartland.
After a case is removed from state court, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). As previously discussed, Plaintiff’s claim arises under the KJRA which “establishes the
exclusive means of judicial review of [Employment Security Board decisions].” See K.S.A. § 77-
606. For this reason, among others, it is clear that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s claim brought against the KDOL Board of Review. 	(Doc. 4 at 1.) 	Accordingly, the
claim brought against the KDOL Board of Review, shall be remanded to the Sedgwick County
District Court.
III. 	Conclusion
THEREFORE, the derivative jurisdiction doctrine bars this court from exercising subject
matter jurisdiction over the claim brought against the Heartland Veterans Network. 	As such,
Defendants’ motion to dismiss Heartland Veterans Network from this matter is GRANTED.
FURTHER, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the clerk is directed to REMAND this case
to the Sedgwick County District Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 20th day of November 2025.
__s/ John Broomes________________
JOHN W. BROOMES
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:25-cv-01243-JWB-BGS Document 11 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 5