The Georgia Department of Human Services, ex. rel. v. Balom
1:23-cv-01446-SDG
N.D. Ga.Aug 15, 2023Background
- Count Artegous Balom filed two pro se in forma pauperis removals: one relating to a state-court contempt complaint for failure to pay child support, and one relating to a municipal traffic citation appeal.
- Magistrate Judge Walker granted Balom IFP status to allow the court to screen for frivolity under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
- Balom relied on diversity jurisdiction as the basis for removal in both actions.
- The filings contained little factual detail about amount in controversy or parties’ citizenship.
- The district court reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte and concluded neither federal-question nor diversity jurisdiction existed for either matter.
- The court ordered remand of the child-support contempt case to the Superior Court of Henry County and the traffic citation case to the Municipal Court of Fitzgerald.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over Balom’s collateral attack of state contempt for child support | Balom: removal based on diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: state-family matter; no federal question; amount/citizenship not shown | No jurisdiction; remand to state superior court |
| Whether federal courts have jurisdiction over Balom’s appeal of a municipal traffic citation | Balom: removal based on diversity jurisdiction | Plaintiffs: traffic citation presents no federal question; amount/citizenship not shown | No jurisdiction; remand to municipal court |
Key Cases Cited
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (purpose and scope of §1915 dismissal for frivolous suits)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Moon v. Newsome, 863 F.2d 835 (11th Cir. 1988) (pro se litigants remain subject to procedural rules)
- Wooden v. Board of Regents, 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (court must consider subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) (domestic relations matters belong to state law)
- Cameron v. Hodges, 127 U.S. 322 (1888) (burden to establish diversity jurisdiction)
- Duff v. Beaty, 804 F. Supp. 332 (N.D. Ga. 1992) (party asserting diversity bears the burden of proof)