SADDLER v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY UNEMPLOYMENT DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MARCELL LAMONT SADDLER : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 21-4695

:

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF :

LABOR AND INDUSTRY :

UNEMPLOYMENT DIVISION :

MEMORANDUM

KEARNEY, J. October 29, 2021

Marcell Lamont Saddler pro se sues the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry

Unemployment Division seeking unemployment compensation benefits he alleges the Department

denied him as well as “legal fees paid for” and damages. We granted Mr. Saddler leave to proceed

in forma pauperis. Congress requires we now screen his complaint before issuing summons. He

claims subject matter jurisdiction based on diverse citizenship, but the parties are both

Pennsylvanians. We also have no pleaded basis to liberally construe his allegations relating to his

appeal of state unemployment benefits as a federal question. We conclude we lack subject matter

jurisdiction. We dismiss his complaint but grant him leave to timely amend if he can state a federal

question against a proper party defendant.

I. Pro se allegations.

Philadelphia resident Marcell Lamont Saddler alleges the Pennsylvania Department of

Labor & Industry Office of Unemployment Compensation terminated his “benefits” on March 11,

2021.1 Some unidentified person told him he qualified for “benefits” – presumably unemployment

benefits – in the state of New Jersey. He alleges this statement is false. He filed an appeal with an

unknown entity on March 11, 2021 and “called numerous times” to an unknown entity with no

response. He alleges as of August 2, 2021, he is awaiting a hearing with an unidentified entity or

agency. He alleges he filed a “claim” with the State of New Jersey but it denied him benefits based

on its determination his is not eligible for benefits in New Jersey.

Mr. Saddler asks us to “decide [his] case and award [him] the amount owed to [him].”2 He

seeks “legal fees paid for and damages in the amount the court finds necessary.” He asserts he is

entitled to the “money” he should have received from “January until September” – he does not

specify the year – and contends the deprivation of benefits for nine months with “no income[,] no

response[,] no resolution” caused him to incur at least $10,000 of debt.

Mr. Saddler alleges the basis of our jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332.3

II. Analysis

Having granted Mr. Saddler leave to proceed in forma pauperis as he is incapable of paying

the fees to commence this civil action,4 we must study the sufficiency of his complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires we “dismiss the case at any time if

[we] determin[e] that – (B) the action … -- (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted

…”5 Section 1915(e)(2) applies to non-prisoners granted in forma pauperis.6

When considering whether to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim under §

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), we use the same standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).7

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, taken as true, to ‘state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face.’”8 “We accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and

construe those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”9 We are directed by our Court of

Appeals to be “mindful of our ‘obligation to liberally construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings …’”10

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.11 We lack authority to address the merits

of a case without subject matter jurisdiction.12 Congress authorized our subject matter jurisdiction

over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”13 or

civil actions where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

interest and costs” where there is diversity of citizenship between the parties.14 As the person

invoking federal jurisdiction, Mr. Saddler carries the burden of showing his case is properly before

us.15

We do not enjoy subject matter jurisdiction. The parties are both from Pennsylvania. Mr.

Saddler is a citizen of Pennsylvania and suing a Pennsylvania agency. We lack diversity of

citizenship. There is no basis to find more than $75,000 in controversy.

Mr. Saddler also failed to identify a federal statute or Constitutional right allegedly violated

as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Even if we could construe Mr. Saddler’s complaint to

raise a civil rights claim, the named defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Department of

Labor and Industry is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and the Department is

not a “person” for purposes of civil rights claims.16

III. Conclusion

Congress requires we screen and dismiss meritless claims filed by parties without paying

filing fees. We lack subject matter jurisdiction. We must dismiss Mr. Saddler’s claims arising from

the Pennsylvania state agency’s ongoing review of his unemployment benefits appeal. An

amendment may not be futile if he can state a claim against a person potentially liable for a due

process or other federal question. We grant him leave to timely amend if he can state a claim within

our limited subject matter jurisdiction.

1 ECF Doc. No. 2 § III. C.

2 Id. § V.

3 Id. § II. A.

4 ECF Doc. No. 4.

5 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

6 Ibrahim v. New Jersey Office of Attorney Gen., No. 21-1129, 2021 WL 3012670, at *1 n.6 (3d

Cir. July 16, 2021) (citing Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 114 n. 19 (3d Cir.

2002); Atamian v. Burns, 236 F. App’x 753, 755 (3d Cir. 2007).

7 Elansari v. Univ. of Pennsylvania, 779 F. App’x 1006, 1008 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Allah v.

Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000)).

8 Id. (quoting Fleisher v. Standard Ins. Co., 679 F.3d 116, 120 (3d Cir. 2012)).

9 Id.

10 Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 374 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Higgs v. Attorney Gen., 655 F.3d

333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (September 19, 2011)).

11 Maglioli v. Alliance HC Holdings LLC, No. 20-2833, 20-2834, 2021 WL 4890189, at * 12 (3d

Cir. Oct. 20, 2021); Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Sec’y United States Dep’t of Health and Human

Servs., 2 F. 4th 121, 130 (3d Cir. 2021).

12 Temple Univ. Hosp., Inc., 2 F. 4th at 130 (citing Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.

83, 94-95 (1998)).

13 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“federal question jurisdiction”).

14 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“diversity jurisdiction”).

15 Brown v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 763 F. App’x 146, 147 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Packard

v. Provident Nat’l Bank, 994 F.2d 1039, 1045 (3d Cir. 1993)).

16 Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989) (“Section 1983 provides a federal

forum to remedy many deprivations of civil liberties, but it does not provide a federal forum for

litigants who seek a remedy against a State for alleged deprivations of civil liberties.”); Foster v.

Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n, 157 F. App’x 488, 490 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(affirming dismissal of claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry on

immunity grounds); Gary v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Labor and Industry, No. 13-2540, 2014 WL

2720805, at * 2 (M.D. Pa. June 13, 2014) (the Eleventh Amendment prohibits claims for money

damages against a state agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is not a

“person” for purposes of Section 1983); Bullard v. Bureau of Unemployment and Allowances, No.

12-3686, 2012 WL 12887644, * 3 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2012) (Pennsylvania Department of Labor and

Industry, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is not a “person” for purposes of section

1983 and the Pennsylvania legislature expressly declined to waive its Eleventh Amendment

immunity); Leer Elec., Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Labor and Industry, 597 F. Supp. 2d 470,

476 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment bars claims against Pennsylvania Department of Labor

and Industry).