Wilder v. Oklahoma DHS ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 2 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
SAMUEL J. WILDER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 96-5247
(D.C. No. 96-CV-276-B)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF (Northern District of Oklahoma)
HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
On April 9, 1996, Plaintiff-Appellant Samuel J. Wilder ("Wilder") filed a
Notice of Appeal and Opening Brief (Complaint) in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma requesting judicial review of an
administrative decision by the Oklahoma Department of Human Services. Wilder
initiated administrative proceedings within the Department to contest what he
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and
judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and
conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
believed to be an unnecessary delay in the processing of his application for Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program ("LIHEAP") benefits. Although the
Department eventually granted him all of the relief he requested, Wilder pursued
the present action in federal district court because he felt that in the written
decision awarding him monetary relief the Department had unfairly criticized him
for failing to file his LIHEAP application on time. The district court dismissed
the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court
subsequently denied Wilder's motion to reconsider. Wilder now appeals. We
affirm.
The district court based its ruling dismissing Wilder's complaint on 56
Okla. Stat. § 168 (1991). The statute provides that applicants and recipients of
public assistance who are aggrieved by a decision of the Director of the
Oklahoma Department of Human Services may petition the district court in which
the applicant or recipient resides for a judicial review of the decision. Wilder
erroneously interprets 56 Okla. Stat. § 168 to confer jurisdiction on the federal
district court. Instead, 56 Okla. Stat. § 168 confers jurisdiction on the Oklahoma
state district court for the district in which an applicant or recipient of benefits
resides to hear complaints against the Department.
Jurisdiction in the federal courts is limited by Article III of the Constitution
of the United States and by federal statute. The United States District Court for
-2-
the Northern District of Oklahoma, a federal district court, did not have
jurisdiction to hear Wilder's complaint under any federal statute. Wilder argues
on appeal that Local Rule 16.1 for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma grants jurisdiction over administrative Review
Cases to the district court. However, Local Rule 16.1 only relates to those cases
over which the district court otherwise has jurisdiction pursuant to federal statute.
Rule 16.1 does not create jurisdiction over actions that must be brought in state
court.
A state statute cannot amend the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Wilder
should have filed his complaint in the Tulsa County District Court for the State of
Oklahoma. Because the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider
Wilder's complaint, we AFFIRM the district court's order dismissing the case.
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-3-