Scott v. D.A.T.

D. Nevada

Scott v. D.A.T.

DecidedFebruary 6, 2023

Docket3:23-cv-00047

StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. D.A.T. (Scott v. D.A.T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scott v. D.A.T., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:23-cv-00047-CSD JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 1-1 v. 6 D.A.T., a minor 7 Defendant 8

9 Plaintiff is an inmate in custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). He 10 initiated this action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada with a motion to 11 establish paternity with respect to D.A.T., a minor. (ECF No. 1-1.) The Clerk provisionally 12 sealed the motion because it discloses the full name of a minor, in violation of Local Rule IC 6- 13 1(a)(2). Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion was not accompanied by the $402 filing fee (consisting of a 14 $350 filing fee and $52 administrative fee) or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 In any event, the court finds that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 16 jurisdiction. “It has been held that even though there is diversity of citizenship and a sufficient 17 amount in controversy to satisfy the technical jurisdictional requirements, the federal courts have 18 no jurisdiction of suits to establish paternity and child support.” Buechold v. Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371, 19 372 (9th Cir. 1968) (citations omitted). “Furthermore, it is well recognized that the federal courts 20 must decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations when the primary issue concerns 21 the status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Id. (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s paternity 22 action is properly brought in state court; however, Plaintiff will have to determine whether the 23 suit is appropriately brought In Indiana, where the minor child lives, or in Nevada, where 2|| Plaintiff currently resides. 3 For these reasons, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing it in the proper state court. The initiating motion (ECF No. 1-1) shall remain 5] SEALED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7\| Dated: February 6, 2023 . CS Or Craig S. Denney 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:23-cv-00047-CSD JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, 4 Order Plaintiff 5 Re: ECF No. 1-1 v. 6 D.A.T., a minor 7 Defendant 8

9 Plaintiff is an inmate in custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). He 10 initiated this action in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada with a motion to 11 establish paternity with respect to D.A.T., a minor. (ECF No. 1-1.) The Clerk provisionally 12 sealed the motion because it discloses the full name of a minor, in violation of Local Rule IC 6- 13 1(a)(2). Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion was not accompanied by the $402 filing fee (consisting of a 14 $350 filing fee and $52 administrative fee) or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 15 In any event, the court finds that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter 16 jurisdiction. “It has been held that even though there is diversity of citizenship and a sufficient 17 amount in controversy to satisfy the technical jurisdictional requirements, the federal courts have 18 no jurisdiction of suits to establish paternity and child support.” Buechold v. Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371, 19 372 (9th Cir. 1968) (citations omitted). “Furthermore, it is well recognized that the federal courts 20 must decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations when the primary issue concerns 21 the status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Id. (collecting cases). Plaintiff’s paternity 22 action is properly brought in state court; however, Plaintiff will have to determine whether the 23 suit is appropriately brought In Indiana, where the minor child lives, or in Nevada, where 2|| Plaintiff currently resides. 3 For these reasons, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to Plaintiff bringing it in the proper state court. The initiating motion (ECF No. 1-1) shall remain 5] SEALED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7\| Dated: February 6, 2023 . CS Or Craig S. Denney 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Scott v. D.A.T., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-dat-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack