# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 23, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-30546 Document: 00516142857 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2021No. 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. 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 s tate, unless it is simply the “ arm ” or “ alter ego ” of the s tate , is a citizen of the s tate for diversity purposes. PYCA Indus., Inc. v. Harrison C nty. Waste Water Mgmt. Dist. , 81 F.3d 1412, 1416 (5th C ir. 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. T here is no indication that t he 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 destr oyed 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: 12/23/2021No. 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. 198 5 ). 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 hi s 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, Pig g 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

. Th e 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