Walton v. Smith
| Robert Walton |
| Dianna Smith |
| 1:2021cv01559 |
| March 22, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Plaintiff's motion for refund of filing fees is denied #7 . Pursuant to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Volume 4, Chapter 6, 650.10, "The Judicial Conference's current policy on refunding filing fees, in effect since 1949, has been broadly interpreted to generally prohibit refunds of fees due upon filing, even if a party filed the case in error or the court dismissed the case or proceeding (JCUS-MAR 49, p. 202)." In addition to the guidance set forth in 650.10, 650.20 provides that a court has limited refund authority and only where electronic payment errors have been made, for example, where there has been payment in excess of the required filing fee. In this case, no such error was made. The filing of this case required the expenditure of judicial resources, including legal research, to determine whether the Court had subject matter jurisdiction. As such, the Court, exercising its discretion, declines to issue a refund. Mailed notice (cn). |
| Filing 7 MOTION for refund of filing fees by Plaintiff Robert Walton. (daj, ) |
| Filing 6 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: Plaintiff Robert Walton, proceeding pro se, has sued Dianna Smith. The entirety of the complaint states as follows: "Now comes Robert Walton (Plaintiff), with a motion before the U.S. District Court against Dianna Smith (Defendant) for custody hearing seeking full custody/or joint custody for the minor child [R.W.] age 4 years old at the present time." Compl., ECF No. 1. The United States Supreme Court has held that, under the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction, an action for custody of a child belongs exclusively in state court. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 70304 (1992); see also Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619, 625 (1987) ("[T]he whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States." (internal quotation marks omitted)); De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570, 580 (1956) ("[T]here is no federal law of domestic relations, which is primarily a matter of state concern."). Because Plaintiff Walton requests a child custody hearing, he may not proceed in federal court. See Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 703 ("[T]he domestic relations exception... divests the federal courts of power to issue... child custody decrees."). Accordingly, this case is dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. See Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc., 725 F.3d 795, 800 (7th Cir. 2013) ("[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation at each stage of the proceedings to ensure that [they] have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Civil case terminated. Mailed notice. (jjr, ) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Dianna Smith (sxb, ) |
| Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Robert Walton (sxb, ) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (sxb, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Robert Walton; Jury Demand. (sxb, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Walton v. Smith | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Dianna Smith | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Robert Walton | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
