Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30985/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30985-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30985

Summary Calendar

JUSTO E. ROQUE, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES STATE OF 

LOUISIANA; SUSSY SONNIER, Secretary; LOUISIANA DIVISION OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ANN WISE, Director, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-3176

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Justo E. Roque, Jr., pro se, filed a complaint against the Louisiana 

Department of Children and Family Services, the Louisiana Division of 

Administrative Law, Sussy Sonnier, and Ann Wise. Liberally construed, the 

complaint appears to challenge adverse state benefit determinations. The 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 17, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30985 Document: 00513508471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2016
No. 15-30985

2

district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The court observed that 

Roque had failed to assert any jurisdictional basis for his claims and that he 

had not suggested what federal laws the defendants allegedly violated, but 

instead incomprehensibly referenced past actions adjudicated in Louisiana 

administrative agencies and state courts.

Roque’s arguments on appeal are just as incomprehensible as the 

allegations in his complaint. He has failed to satisfy his burden of identifying 

any basis for subject matter jurisdiction over his claims in federal court. The 

district court did not err in dismissing the complaint and its judgment is 

therefore

AFFIRMED.1

 

1 The appellant’s motion for oral argument is denied.

 Case: 15-30985 Document: 00513508471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2016