Virginia Dunn v. Bradley Miller

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-11817 Affirmed in Part and Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction in Part ] Judge: EGJ , Judge: PRO , Judge: CH Mandate pull date is 09/07/2017 [16-11817]

Case: 16-11817

Document: 00514120021

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/17/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-11817
Summary Calendar
VIRGINIA T. DUNN,

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
August 17, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
BRADLEY B. MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CV-3213
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
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

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-11817

Document: 00514120021

Page: 2

Date Filed: 08/17/2017

No. 16-11817
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 (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 F. App’x 868, 870 (11th Cir.), cert.
denied, 137 S. Ct. 203 (2016). Miller makes no such claim. Accordingly, the
district court lacked jurisdiction over this removed action under § 1443.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2