Coleman v. Baumgartner
- Martinez-Olgui
- 3:23-cv-01737
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Coleman v. Baumgartner, Judge Martinez-Olgui ordered Coleman to explain why the case should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
Wendell Coleman and the defendants, including Kendra Baumgartner, are affected. Coleman was required to respond to the jurisdiction order by September 15, 2023; the court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice.
What happened
In Coleman v. Baumgartner, Wendell Coleman, representing himself, brought claims connected to child custody, domestic violence, and family disputes. He relied on several federal criminal laws and other provisions and claimed both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.
The court questioned both jurisdictional bases. It stated that the federal criminal laws cited by Coleman did not appear to support federal-question jurisdiction, and that the complaint alleged all parties were California citizens, leaving no apparent basis for diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Celi Martinez-Olgui ordered Coleman to file a written response by September 15, 2023, explaining why the case should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order did not yet dismiss the case, but warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Coleman v. Baumgartner · No. 3:23-cv-01737
- Martinez-Olgui
- Aug. 21, 2023
Background
Wendell Coleman, proceeding without a lawyer, filed the action on April 11, 2023. He asserted claims under 10 U.S.C. § 921, 18 U.S.C. §§ 35, 241, 242, 1001, and 1621, and 25 C.F.R. § 11.404. The complaint concerned child custody, domestic violence, and other family disputes. Coleman alleged that the court had both federal-question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction means the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction generally requires claims arising under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction requires more than $75,000 in controversy and citizenship in different states.
The court questioned whether either basis existed. It stated that federal-question jurisdiction did not appear to exist because the federal criminal laws on which Coleman relied did not appear to provide a proper basis. The opinion text provided is incomplete at the end of that discussion. The court also stated that diversity jurisdiction appeared unavailable because, based on the complaint’s allegations, all parties were citizens of California, even if the amount-in-controversy requirement were met.
Order
The court ordered Coleman to show why the action should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It required a written response by September 15, 2023. The court warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice, meaning the order stated that refiling would not be barred on that basis. The opinion is an order to show cause; it does not state that the case had already been dismissed.
Judge Celi Martinez-Olguin signed the order on August 21, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.