Knight v. Baltimore City Child Support

• Court: District Court, D. Maryland
• Decided: April 3, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01078
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARIO KNIGHT, Plaintiff, *

v. * CIVIL NO. JKB-25-1078 BALTIMORE CITY CHILD SUPPORT, * Defendant. me * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Mario Knight has filed suit against “Baltimore City Child Support.” (ECF No. 1.) He has also filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) The Court will dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. “[Q]uestions of subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any point during the proceedings and may (or, more precisely, must) be raised swa sponte by the court.” Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Engineering, Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 390 (4th Cir. 2004) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). For a federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction over an action, typically there must either be diversity of citizenship between the parties (“diversity jurisdiction”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or the action must arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (“federal-question jurisdiction”), 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Neither is present here. With respect to diversity jurisdiction, there is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, as Plaintiff is a resident of Maryland, as is “Baltimore City Child Support.” Further, although Plaintiff cites to several federal criminal laws—18 U.S.C. § 878 (which relates to threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 18 U.S.C. § 872 (which relates to extortion by officers or employees of the United States), and 18

U.S.C. § 3571 (which Plaintiff asserts relates to “slavery forced compliance” but which in reality relates to the payment of fines for persons guilty of an offense), (see ECF No. 1 at 4)—it is well established that private citizens do not have a right of action to enforce criminal statutes. Moore v. Reddy, Civ. No. SAG-23-2854, 2023 WL 7089933, at *1 (D. Md. Oct. 26, 2023) (“[Plaintiff s] recitation of federal criminal statutes does not establish federal question jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. This case is DISMISSED; and 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the Plaintiff.

DATED this “2 day of April, 2025. BY THE COURT: Decree (Dube Jantes K. Bredar United States District Judge