Pigg v. Harris ( 2021 )

Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 23, 2021
No. 20-30546
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Randy Pigg,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Thomas F. Harris, Secretary of Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources Office of Mineral Resources State Mineral
and Energy Board,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:19-CV-1466
Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Randy Pigg, California prisoner # V46860, filed a civil suit against the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and Secretary Thomas Harris to
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-30546
secure mineral rights and title to property in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, that
was previously seized by the federal government. Pigg appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He also
moves for appointment of counsel, an expedited appeal, and suspension of
the Parsons Lease.
Pigg argues that the district court erred in dismissing his suit for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. As related to diversity jurisdiction, Pigg asserts
that the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources is an independent
agency and, thus, a citizen of Louisiana such that its inclusion as a defendant
does not destroy diversity of the parties. As related to federal question
jurisdiction, Pigg contends that he raised a colorable claim under the Takings
Clause of the U.S. Constitution. He also alleges that Jeremy Evans, the
DeSoto Parish Clerk of Court, impeded his constitutional right to access the
courts.
We have recognized that a political subdivision of a state, unless it is
simply the “arm” or “alter ego” of the state, is a citizen of the state for
diversity purposes. PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison Cnty. Waste Water Mgmt.
Dist., 81 F.3d 1412, 1416 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Tradigrain, Inc. v. Miss. State
Port Auth., 701 F.2d 1131, 1132 (5th Cir. 1983)). In determining the character
of the agency, we examine the same factors used to determine whether the
agency enjoys immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Tradigrain, 701
F.2d at 1132. There is no indication that the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources is anything other than an arm of the state and, therefore,
the district court did not err in its determination that its inclusion as a
defendant destroyed diversity jurisdiction. See La. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 36:351; Champagne v. Jefferson Par. Sheriff’s Off., 188 F.3d 312, 313 (5th Cir.
1999); PYCA Indus., Inc., 81 F.3d at 1416.
2
Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-30546
Federal question jurisdiction “attaches only if the complaint itself
states a substantial federal claim.” Maroney v. Univ. Interscholastic League,
764 F.2d 403, 405 (5th Cir. 1985). Pigg’s own exhibit to his complaint
showed that the federal government, rather than the State of Louisiana,
seized his family’s property. In that regard, there would be no colorable
Takings Clause claim against the state defendants and, thus, the federal claim
would be frivolous. See Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946). As to
Pigg’s claim regarding access to the courts, he stated unequivocally in his
complaint that any action by Evans was not the focus of his lawsuit.
Therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing Pigg’s complaint for
lack of federal question jurisdiction. See id.Pigg argues that the district court erred when it did not permit him to
amend his complaint so that he could raise a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983and add Evans as a defendant. Pigg’s conclusional assertion that the district
court’s ruling betrays the spirit and purpose of § 1983 is insufficient to show
that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion to amend
his complaint. See Aldridge v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 990 F.3d 868, 878 (5th Cir.
2021). In addition, Pigg named Evans as a defendant and raised the same
claims against him in another federal lawsuit and, therefore, Pigg has not
shown that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to add
Evans as a defendant in the instant suit. See id.The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motions for
appointment of counsel, for an expedited appeal, and for the suspension of
the Parsons Lease are DENIED.
3