United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30546

Summary Calendar

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-30546

2

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. Asrelated 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.

Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2021
No. 20-30546

3

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. § 1983

and 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.

Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/23/2021