Lockwood v. Milwood Behavioral Hospital

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
MARIA LOCKWOOD 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-1067-P
§
MILWOOD BEHAVIORAL 	§
HOSPITAL, ET AL. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
On December 5, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Maria Lockwood (“Plaintiff”) filed her Amended
Complaint 	[doc. 	15]. 	Having 	reviewed 	Plaintiff’s 	Amended 	Complaint, 	the 	Court
RECOMMENDS that the case be DISMISSED as this case was improperly filed in this Court.
As set forth below, this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this case because
the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not met and Plaintiff has not plead a federal question
claim against Defendants.
Plaintiff states that this Court has jurisdiction because of federal question subject-matter
jurisdiction. (See Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Pl,’s Am. Compl.”) at 3.) 	In her Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she was assaulted at work by a coworker and that her employer
did not punish the other employee. (See Pl,’s Am. Compl. at 3.) She also alleges that, as a result
of the assault, she resigned her position. (Pl,’s Am. Compl. at 4 (“Due to workplace violence it
caused me [illegible] to resigned”).) 	Plaintiff appears to be bringing claims against her former
employer and coworkers based on this assault and subsequent loss of income resulting from her
no longer being employed. (See Pl,’s Am. Compl. at 4.)
This Court must be careful not to exercise jurisdiction where no basis for it exists. 	See
Tex. Med. Res., LLP v. Molina Healthcare of Tex., Inc., 356 F. Supp. 3d 612, 615 (N.D. Tex.
2019). Even if no party were to contest subject-matter jurisdiction, this Court must raise the issue
Case 4:25-cv-01067-P Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
sua sponte. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The party asserting federal jurisdiction, “has the burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that subject matter jurisdiction exists.” 	New
Orleans & Gulf Coast Ry. Co. v. Barrois, 533 F.3d 321, 327 (5th Cir. 2008). “[F]ederal 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.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Diversity jurisdiction
over civil claims exists when “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and” is between “citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a).
As set forth above, Plaintiff states that this Court has jurisdiction because of federal
question subject-matter jurisdiction. 	(See Pl,’s Am. Compl. at 3.) 	However, based on her
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff is only asserting state law claims stemming from the assault by her
coworker. (See Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 1-4.) Such state law claims, however, do not support federal
question jurisdiction. See Pearlman v. City of Fort Worth, Tex., 400 Fed. Appx. 956, 958 (5th Cir.
2010) (noting that “state law claims” include “false arrest and false imprisonment, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and assault and battery”). As to diversity jurisdiction, the amount
in controversy is not met and Plaintiff does not allege the citizenship of any Defendant. (See Pl.’s
Am. Compl. at 3-4 (stating that she is requesting $40,000 in damages and leaving the citizenship
section of the form amended complaint blank).) Consequently, the Court finds and concludes that
neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction exists, and the case should be dismissed.
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the case be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Case 4:25-cv-01067-P Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to an action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation (“FCR”) within fourteen (14) days after the
party has been served with a copy of such FCR. 	The United States District Judge need only make
a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 	Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a
proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error
or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. 	See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto
Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
Case 4:25-cv-01067-P Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until February
9, 2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to
the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions and recommendation, be and hereby
is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.
SIGNED January 26, 2026.
____________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-01067-P Document 19 Filed 01/26/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>