Wilson Marshall v. Caudill
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:23-cv-01998
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wilson Marshall v. Caudill, Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Marshall’s application without prejudice because she had not shown federal jurisdiction.
Grace Wilson Marshall’s request for emergency relief concerning her minor children was denied without prejudice; Benjamin Ryan Caudill was the person the requested order would have restrained.
What happened
In Wilson Marshall v. Caudill, Grace Wilson Marshall asked the federal court to stop Benjamin Ryan Caudill from removing her minor children from the United States. She also asserted claims under several federal criminal and anticorruption statutes.
The court questioned whether it had jurisdiction because the requested relief appeared to concern child custody. It explained that the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act is a state-adopted uniform law, not federal law, and does not itself provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Marshall’s application for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order without prejudice, pending a showing that federal jurisdiction is proper. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Wilson Marshall v. Caudill · No. 1:23-cv-01998
- Ronnie Abrams
- Mar. 30, 2023
Background
Grace Wilson Marshall, representing herself, filed a complaint asserting claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 1204 and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 et seq. The court had previously ordered her to explain why the court had jurisdiction over her claims.
Marshall then applied for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order—orders intended to provide temporary relief—seeking to prevent Benjamin Ryan Caudill from removing her minor children from the United States. She argued that the court could issue the order under § 204(a) of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
Court’s Analysis
The court remained skeptical that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the dispute. It stated that the requested relief appeared to concern child custody and that custody disputes fall within the domestic-relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction recognized in Ankenbrandt v. Richards.
The court also explained that the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act is not federal law. It is a uniform law adopted by several states, including New York, and does not itself create a federal cause of action or establish federal jurisdiction. The court stated that Marshall had not provided a plausible jurisdictional basis after the court’s earlier order. Without jurisdiction, the court said, it could not proceed or provide the requested relief.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Marshall’s application without prejudice, pending a showing of why jurisdiction in the court is proper. The order did not reach the merits of Marshall’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.