Justo Roque, Jr. v. Dept of Child and Fam Svc, et, No. 15-30985 (5th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-30985 Document: 00513508471 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-30985 Summary Calendar JUSTO E. ROQUE, JR., United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED May 17, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 15-30985 Document: 00513508471 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2016 No. 15-30985 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. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.