Virginia Dunn v. Bradley Miller

Fifth Circuit

Virginia Dunn v. Bradley Miller

695 F. App'x 799

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 17, 2017

Docket16-11817 Summary Calendar

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 695 F. App'x 799 (Virginia Dunn v. Bradley Miller) 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

Virginia Dunn v. Bradley Miller, 695 F. App'x 799 (5th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

In 2013, Virginia Dunn filed a petition for divorce from Bradley Miller. An agreed judgment was entered in 2014, but thereafter, Dunn filed an application in state court seeking to modify child custody arrangements. After a 2016 trial regarding same, Miller filed a notice of removal to a federal district court citing, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in support. The district court concluded that it lacked removal jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. Miller appeals.

At the outset, we must limit our decision to the only matter over which we have appellate jurisdiction: whether 28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides removal jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We lack jurisdiction over any other potential grounds for federal jurisdiction, including any potential jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed under a federal statute; to the extent the appeal relates to any such grounds, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has construed the “equal civil rights” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 to be limited to those rights grounded in racial equality. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966); see also Peltier v. Peltier, 548 F.2d 1083, 1084 (1st Cir. 1977); Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978); Robertson v. Ball, 534 F.2d 63, 66 (5th Cir. 1976); Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2005); Jimenez v. Wizel, 644 Fed.Appx. 868, 870 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 203, 196 L.Ed.2d 131 (2016). Miller makes no such claim. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction over this removed action under § 1443.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

In 2013, Virginia Dunn filed a petition for divorce from Bradley Miller. An agreed judgment was entered in 2014, but thereafter, Dunn filed an application in state court seeking to modify child custody arrangements. After a 2016 trial regarding same, Miller filed a notice of removal to a federal district court citing, among other statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1443 in support. The district court concluded that it lacked removal jurisdiction and remanded the case to state court. Miller appeals.

At the outset, we must limit our decision to the only matter over which we have appellate jurisdiction: whether 28 U.S.C. § 1443 provides removal jurisdiction over this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We lack jurisdiction over any other potential grounds for federal jurisdiction, including any potential jurisdiction over a lawsuit filed under a federal statute; to the extent the appeal relates to any such grounds, we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has construed the “equal civil rights” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1443 to be limited to those rights grounded in racial equality. Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (1966); see also Peltier v. Peltier, 548 F.2d 1083, 1084 (1st Cir. 1977); Wilkins v. Rogers, 581 F.2d 399, 403 (4th Cir. 1978); Robertson v. Ball, 534 F.2d 63, 66 (5th Cir. 1976); Hunt v. Lamb, 427 F.3d 725, 727 (10th Cir. 2005); Jimenez v. Wizel, 644 Fed.Appx. 868, 870 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 203, 196 L.Ed.2d 131 (2016). Miller makes no such claim. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction over this removed action under § 1443.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

*

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)

695 F. App'x 799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/virginia-dunn-v-bradley-miller-ca5-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack