Markeema Smalls v. Betsy Jo Wahl

── Markeema Smalls v. Betsy Jo Wahl ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General ALD-112 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 25-3404 ___________ MARKEEMA YVETTE SMALLS, Sui Juris, Executrix & Trustee of the Markeema Yvette Lee Smalls 508(c)(1)(A) Ecclesiastical Convention Trust, Special Appearance Only, with consenting to jurisdiction Appellant v. JUDGE BETSY JO WAHL, in Official and Private Capacity; NEFERTITI C. JORDAN, ESQ., in Official and Private Capacity; MIKAL COLEMAN, in Private Capacity ____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-04852) District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert ____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 9, 2026 Before: SHWARTZ, FREEMAN, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: April 20, 2026) _________ OPINION * _________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. PER CURIAM Markeema Smalls appeals pro se from an order dismissing her amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We will summarily affirm. Smalls initiated this matter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to raise claims stemming from her lack of success in state court child custody proceedings. She named as defendants Mikal Coleman, the father of her minor child with whom she shares custody, Coleman’s attorney, and the Honorable Betsy Jo Wahl, who presided over the state court action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The District Court screened the amended complaint and dismissed Smalls’ federal causes of action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The court then reviewed the remaining state-law claims, concluded that diversity jurisdiction was lacking given Smalls’ failure to allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 and the implausibility that the conduct she alleged would entitle her to recover such an amount in any event, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Although the court dismissed Smalls’ state-law claims without further leave to amend, it did so without prejudice to her right to pursue them in an appropriate state court. Smalls appeals. 1 1 Smalls also has filed numerous motions seeking expedited review; an injunction pending appeal; an emergency protective custody order; leave to file supplemental addenda, notices, and evidence; and modification or supplementation of the record to include materials that were docketed in the District Court but that apparently were not electronically transferred to this Court. 2  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we exercise plenary review over the District Court’s dismissal of Smalls’ amended complaint under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), accepting as true her factual allegations and construing her pleadings in the light most favorable to her. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000); Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amge