Opinion

Rios v. Board of Review, Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA)

Court
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Filed
Mar 7, 2018
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 22.6%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

NATALIE JOY RIOS,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO.

18-10435-WGY

BOARD OF REVIEW, MASSACHUSETTS

DEPARTMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT

ASSISTANCE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YOUNG, D.J. March 7, 2018

For the reasons stated below, the Court dismisses this

action without prejudice.

I. Background

Pro se litigant Natalie Joy Rios, who resides in Cambridge,

Massachusetts, brings this action in which she challenges the

decision of the Board of Review of the Massachusetts Department

of Unemployment Assistance to dismiss her claims for

unemployment benefits. According to Rios, she was working full-

time until she was unlawfully discharged in September 2017. She

applied for unemployment benefits the same month and began to

receive partial unemployment benefits. However, in January

2018, the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance

found that she was “indefinitely ineligible” for unemployment

benefits.

II. Discussion

A court always has an obligation to inquire sua sponte into

its own jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez, 364 F.3d 1, 5

(1st Cir. 2004). Upon a preliminary review of the complaint,

the Court concludes that the Rios cannot bring this action in

federal court.

The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

generally precludes suits against a State in federal court

unless the State has waived is immunity or Congress has

overridden it. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Doe, 519

U.S. 425, 429 (1997); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 167 n.14

(1985); Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U.S. 781, 782 (1978) (per curiam).

Here, the defendant is an agency of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. Rios does not identify, nor can the Court

discern, and claim for which the defendant’s Eleventh Amendment

immunity has been waived or overridden. Accordingly, the

Eleventh Amendment precludes the Court—a federal court—from

exercising jurisdiction over this action.

Although defendant’s Eleventh Amendment immunity precludes

judicial review of Rios’s claim by this Court, it does not

preclude Rios from seeking relief in the state court. Under

Massachusetts law, a person may obtain judicial review of the

decision of the Board of Review of the Massachusetts Department

of Unemployment Assistance “by commencing within thirty days of

the date of mailing of such decision, a civil action in the

district court within the judicial district in which he lives,

or is or was last employed, or has his usual place of business.”

M.G.L. ch. 151A, § 42 para. 1. “District court,” as used in

this statute, refers to the state district court, not the

federal district court.1

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for the

appointment of counsel shall be terminated as moot.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ William G. Young_____________

WILLIAM G. YOUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1A list of the state district courts may be found at

https://www.mass.gov/orgs/district-court/locations (last visited

Mar. 7, 2018).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.