Wiegand v. Jasmine Colombo Davis

Background

Cameron Joseph Wiegand, representing himself, filed a complaint against Jasmine Colombo Davis and Edward Charles Reardon V. He said the claims arose under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the U.S. Constitution, but he did not identify a specific legal claim against either defendant. He also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, and requested an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO).

Wiegand sought immediate removal of his minor child from the other respondent’s custody and additional relief, including preservation of electronic records, a medical examination, an emergency hearing, sealed proceedings, and referrals for criminal investigation. He alleged that Nevada state-court custody proceedings and related law-enforcement activity had been compromised. The opinion states that the Clark County Family Court had awarded Wiegand sole legal and physical custody on October 9, 2025, but later granted Davis custody on October 24, 2025.

Rulings

The court granted Wiegand’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because he stated that he was unemployed, had no savings or assets, and had limited expenses. After granting that status, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The court denied the TRO. It concluded that Wiegand had not shown that the federal court had jurisdiction over the claims or authority to order the requested custody change. Wiegand cited federal statutes and the Constitution but did not identify a specific cause of action. The court also held that, even if federal-question jurisdiction existed, the dispute was at its core a child-custody matter. Under the domestic-relations limitation on federal jurisdiction, the federal court could not issue a custody decree or alter the custody arrangement established by the state courts.

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. It found that the complaint did not provide the short and plain statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), contained no attached statement of facts despite referring to one, identified no specific claims, and did not describe the relief sought. The dismissal was based on the complaint’s pleading defects and screening requirements; the court did not decide whether Wiegand’s factual allegations were true or whether he could ultimately prevail on a properly stated claim. Any amended complaint was due by October 9, 2026.

The court also addressed Wiegand’s motion to seal. It granted sealing for the submitted documents except Exhibit 4-B, a picture of an adult woman, and Exhibit 6-A, an email from Clark County Court. Those two exhibits were to be refiled on the public docket. Because other filings identified Wiegand’s minor child by full legal name, the court locked those filings and ordered Wiegand to file redacted versions within 14 days.

Effect of the Order

The order allowed Wiegand to proceed without paying the filing fee, denied the requested emergency custody intervention, dismissed the complaint while allowing an amendment, and limited the sealing order as described above. It directed Wiegand to seek any revocation or adjustment of the state custody order through the state courts.