Celestine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

LAFAYETTE DIVISION

JOSEPH TAFT CELESTINE CASE NO. 6:25-CV-00752

VERSUS JUDGE DAVID C. JOSEPH

RICHARD A STANGER MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID J. AYO

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Now before this Court is a handwritten requested filed by plaintiff Joseph Taft

Celestine which the Court has docketed as a MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL. (Rec. Doc. 12).

The undersigned issues the following report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636. For the reasons explained below, this Court recommends that Celestine’s suit be

dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).

Factual Background

Celestine, acting pro se, filed the instant medical malpractice suit in the Western

District of Louisiana on May 30, 2025. (Rec. Doc. 1). Celestine alleges that Dr. Richard A.

Stanger negligently performed an L2–S1 spinal fusion surgery on him on July 22, 2020,

causing injury and damages, for which he seeks relief in the amount of approximately

$2,960,500.00.1 (Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 7). He cites the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution

as a basis for relief in this matter. (Id.).

1 Celestine’s Complaint contains the following language:

Damages Awardable to Plaintiff…

Tort Liability…$2.8 Million Dollars

Medical Malpractice…$100,50 Thousand of Dollars

Mental Anguish…$60,000,000 Thousand of Dollars[.]

(Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 7).

Celestine sought and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis at the time this

suit was filed. (Rec. Doc. 4). On June 3, 2025 the Clerk of Court issued a summons as to Dr.

Stanger, the sole named defendant. (Rec. Doc. 5). Celestine attempted to effect service upon

Dr. Stanger via certified U.S. Mail. (Rec. Doc. 6). On September 5, 2025, the Clerk of Court

issued its Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Under LR 41.3, advising

Celestine that his suit would be dismissed if he did not file proof of service or an appropriate

motion for additional time in which to make service within 14 days of its issuance. (Rec. Doc.

7). Celestine again filed purported proof of service on September 19, 2025, which the Clerk

of Court advised was insufficient under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Rec.

Docs. 8, 9). Thereafter, the Clerk of Court reissued the summons. (Rec. Doc. 10). On

September 29, 2025, Celestine again filed purported proof of service into the record, which

the Clerk of Court advised remained insufficient under Rule 4. (Rec. Doc. 11). Celestine now

seeks the appointment of counsel to represent him based on his lack of education and lack of

access to electronic mail. (Rec. Doc. 12 at p. 2).

Applicable Standards

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess

only that power authorized by Constitution and statute…which

is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be presumed

that a cause of action lies outside this limited jurisdiction…and

the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

asserting jurisdiction.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (internal citations

omitted). A federal court has “an ‘obligation to assure itself of its own jurisdiction, sua sponte

if necessary.’” Nat ’l Religious Broadcasters v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 138 F.4th 282, 290

(5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Elldakli v. Garland, 64 F.4th 666, 669 (5th Cir. 2023)). Where a court

determines it lacks jurisdiction over a claim it must dismiss the suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

Federal district courts possess subject matter jurisdiction over cases in which there is

diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of costs

and interest. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Section 1332 requires “complete diversity,” which is to say

that no party on one side of the controversy may share citizenship with any party on the other

side of the controversy. Harvey v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co., 542 F.3d 1077, 1079 (5th Cir. 2008)

(citing Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806), McLaughlin v. Miss.

Power Co., 376 F.3d 344, 353 (5th Cir. 2004)).

Federal district courts also possess subject matter jurisdiction over cases “arising

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Additionally, federal question jurisdiction may exist where state law causes of action are

asserted, but the adjudication of those claims the court to resolve “a substantial question of

federal law in dispute between the parties.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr.

Laborers Vacation Tr. for State of Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983).

Analysis

Review of Celestine’s Complaint reveals that he asserts a single medical malpractice

claim against Dr. Stanger arising from his July 2020 surgery. (Rec. Doc. 1). Celestine’s

address of record indicates that he is a resident of Lafayette and a Louisiana citizen.2 (Rec.

Doc. 3). Similarly, Dr. Stanger’s address is alleged to be 10101 Park Rowe Avenue, Third

Floor, Suite 6, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810, indicating that Dr. Stanger is also a Louisiana

citizen. (Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 9). Based on the facts alleged by Celestine, the parties are not

2 At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Celestine reported 504 N. Pierce St., Apt. 3105,

Lafayette, LA 70501-3569 as his address of record. (Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 1). On June 2, 2025, Celestine

filed a Notice of Change of Address, asking that his address of record be changed to 418 Stevensons

St., Lafayette, LA 70501. (Rec. Doc. 3). In successive filings, Celestine lists his address as 418

Stevenson St., Lafayette, LA 70501.” (See, Rec. Doc. 12). As there is no “Stevensons St.” in Lafayette,

Louisiana, this Court will direct the Clerk of Court to amend the record to note Celestine’s correct

address of 418 Stevenson St., Lafayette, LA 70501.

diverse in citizenship, as both are Louisiana citizens. Thus, despite the damages sought,

which clearly exceed the jurisdictional threshold under Section 1332, this case does not fall

within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction.

Celestine’s Complaint states a single claim for medical malpractice against Dr.

Stanger. (Rec. Doc. 1). A fair reading of the Complaint indicates that this claim is governed

by the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act (“MMA”), LA. STAT. ANN. 40:1231.1, et seq. Despite

Celestine’s invocation of the Eleventh Amendment, this Court finds no application of this

provision to Celestine’s claim. The Eleventh Amendment establishes the sovereign immunity

of the states, providing that no state may be sued “either in its own courts, courts of other

states, or federal courts…without the state’s consent.” Russell v. Jones, 49 F.4th 507, 512

(5th Cir. 2022) (citing College Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd.,

527 U.S. 666, 670 (1999)). Construing the allegations of the Complaint in the light most

favorable to Celestine and taking into account his pro se status, this Court nevertheless finds

no federal claim is reasonably presented. Accordingly, this case also falls outside the Court’s

federal question jurisdiction.

Having determined that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Celestine’s

claims, the undersigned will recommend dismissal of this suit without prejudice pursuant to

Rules 12(b)(1) and (h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the absence of subject

matter jurisdiction, the Court need not consider appointment of counsel, as it lacks the

authority to grant relief.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court recommends that the instant suit be

DISMISSED without prejudice based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Considering

the foregoing, it is further recommended that Celestine’s pending MOTION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL (Rec. Doc. 12) be DENIED as MOOT.

Under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), parties

aggrieved by this recommendation have fourteen days from service of this report and

recommendation to file specific, written objections with the Clerk of Court. A party may

respond to another party’s objections within fourteen days after being served with of a copy

of any objections or responses to the district judge at the time of filing.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed factual findings and/or the proposed

legal conclusions reflected in the report and recommendation within fourteen days following

the date of its service, or within the time frame authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), shall bar

an aggrieved party from attacking either the factual findings or the legal conclusions

accepted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error.

THUS DONE in Chambers, Lafayette, Louisiana on this 10th day of October, 2025.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE