Bethany Gill v. Brandon Hatton

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky grants Bethany Gill’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and conducts an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and the UCCJEA do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction, that diversity jurisdiction is not established, and that Younger abstention would independently preclude the requested relief concerning ongoing state custody and child-support proceedings. The court determines that amendment would be futile and dismisses the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. Section 2261A is a criminal statute that neither authorizes a private citizen to initiate federal criminal charges nor provides a private civil cause of action; therefore, it did not confer subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. The UCCJEA does not provide a private right of action in federal court and is not federal law; therefore, it did not establish federal-question jurisdiction.
3. The complaint did not establish diversity jurisdiction because, although the parties were alleged to reside in different states, the plaintiff did not seek damages or allege facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.
4. Younger abstention would bar the requested injunctive or declaratory relief because the complaint concerned ongoing state judicial proceedings, important state interests in family-law matters, and proceedings in which the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity to raise her claims.
5. Leave to amend was not required because amendment would be futile where the complaint's jurisdictional defect was apparent from its face and could not be cured by amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2261A permits a private plaintiff to initiate a federal criminal prosecution or provides a private civil cause of action sufficient to establish federal-question jurisdiction.
2. Whether the UCCJEA provides a private right of action in federal court or otherwise establishes federal-question jurisdiction.
3. Whether the complaint established diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
4. Whether Younger abstention barred the requested federal injunctive or declaratory relief concerning ongoing state custody and child-support proceedings.
5. Whether leave to amend was required before dismissal.

Disposition

dismissed