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
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.
Why Is My Information Online?