Mann v. Smith

Fifth Circuit

Mann v. Smith

110 F. App'x 466

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2004

Docket04-60345

StatusUnpublished

This text of 110 F. App'x 466 (Mann v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mann v. Smith, 110 F. App'x 466 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Ellis Mann appeals the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit seeking to have custody of his daughter restored to him. He argues that the dismissal was erroneous because the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as he has recently moved to California.

The district court lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction over Mann’s attempt to modify the terms of a state-court child custody order. See Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895, 900 (5th Cir.1987); see also Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dept. of Public Welfare, 995 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir.1993). The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). We caution Mann that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Ellis Mann appeals the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit seeking to have custody of his daughter restored to him. He argues that the dismissal was erroneous because the district court had jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as he has recently moved to California.

The district court lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction over Mann’s attempt to modify the terms of a state-court child custody order. See Rykers v. Alford, 832 F.2d 895, 900 (5th Cir.1987); see also Chrissy F. by Medley v. Miss. Dept. of Public Welfare, 995 F.2d 595, 599 (5th Cir.1993). The appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). We caution Mann that the filing of frivolous appeals and motions will invite the imposition of a sanction.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 F. App'x 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-smith-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack