Coleman et al v. Middle Georgia Probation LLC

Filing 43

ORDER directing Plaintiffs to submit a concise brief identifying this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction by the close of business on 08/17/2018 re the 40 Amended Complaint. (Compliance due by 8/17/2018.) Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 07/30/2018. (jlh)

FILED

U.S. DiSTRtCT COURT
AUGUSTA DIV.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEO^^I^UL 30 AH 10= 51
DUBLIN DIVISION

RANDY EUGENE COLEMAN,

*

WgA

STAR LATOSHA YOUNG, and all

• -•

o .

other persons similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs,
"k

V.

*

MIDDLE GEORGIA PROBATION, LLC,

CV 315-035

*
*■

Defendant.

*

ORDER

This case started on April 7, 2015, when Plaintiffs filed

a complaint challenging the constitutionality of Georgia's
statutory scheme of using private,
provide

probation

offenders.

supervision

Defendant

Middle

for-profit companies to

services

Georgia

for

misdemeanor

Probation,

LLC,

is

a

private probation company that provides such services to the
State

Court

of

Emanuel

Georgia,

and the

Court of Swainsboro, Georgia.

(Am. Compl.

f 39. )

first

sought

declaration

complaint.

County,

Plaintiffs

Georgia's private probation statute,

a

O.C.G.A.

Municipal
In their

42-8-100,

that

was

unconstitutional and asked for damages for any probation fees
Plaintiffs were required to pay Defendant.
1,

S[ 62. )

(Compl., Doc. No.

Plaintiffs'

complaints

in

counsel

this

has

district

probation companies.

filed

a

number

against

of

similar

different

private

See, e.g., Brinson v. Providence Cmtv.

Corr.. Inc., 2016 WL 9651775 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2016); Keen v.
Judicial Alternatives of Ga.> Inc., 124 F. Supp. 3d 1334 (S.D.

Ga. 2015).

In Keen, this Court dismissed the plaintiff's

complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to
seek declaratory relief, inter alia.
3d

at

1337-38.

Court's Order.

The

See Keen, 124 F. Supp.

plaintiff subsequently appealed the

See Keen v. Judicial Alternatives of Georgia,

Inc., 637 F. App'x 546

(11th Cir. 2015).

In the instant action. Plaintiffs moved to certify a

class on July 6, 2015.

(Doc. No. 16.)

In light of the

Court's Order in Keen, Defendant proposed that this case be

stayed until the appeal in that case was resolved.

The Court

granted the unopposed motion on November 11, 2015.

(Doc. No.

28.)

After the Eleventh Circuit's ruling became final, the

parties

were

directed

to

attend

a

status

conference

on

December 20, 2017, to discuss the impact of the Eleventh
Circuit's

decision

in

Keen.

(Doc.

No.

36.)

The

Court

subsequently granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Leave to
Amend their Complaint and annulled its stay.
42.)

(Doc. Nos. 39,

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs abandon their claim
for declaratory judgment and do not seek relief under a
federal cause of action.

Because the parties are not diverse,

the presiding judge is uncertain whether this Court continues
to

have

subject-matter

jurisdiction

over

this

case.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to submit a concise brief
identifying this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction by the

close of business on August 17, 2018.
ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

^
day of

July, 2018.

UNITED STATEE DISTRICT JUDGE