Moussignac v. Georgia Department of Human Resources , 139 F. App'x 161 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 04-16462 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar June 16, 2005
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-03007-CV-TWT-1
SPELLMAN MOUSSIGNAC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
MARIAH WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(June 16, 2005)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Georgia resident Spellman Moussignac appeals the district court’s dismissal,
for lack of jurisdiction, of his removal proceedings of a state court action for child
support. He claims the district court erred by dismissing his removal action of a
recovery of child support, initiated against him by the Georgia Department of
Human Resources (GDHR) in the Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia. He
also argues the GDHR violated his rights under the Bankruptcy Code by
garnishing his wages and suspending his driver’s license during the bankruptcy
proceedings.
Whether the district court had removal jurisdiction is a question we review
de novo. Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 261 F.3d 1065, 1068 (11th Cir. 2001),
affirmed sub nom., Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 123 S. Ct. 366(2002). “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the
court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
“The federal judiciary has traditionally abstained from deciding cases
concerning domestic relations. As a result, federal courts generally dismiss cases
involving divorce and alimony, child custody, visitation rights, establishment of
paternity, child support, and enforcement of separation or divorce decrees still
subject to state court modification.” Ingram v. Hayes, 866 F.2d 368, 369 (11th Cir.
2
1988) (citations omitted) (holding although diversity of citizenship existed, the
district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction in domestic relations
case). However, the domestic relations exception “does not justify abstention in all
diversity cases involving intra-family disputes.” Id. at 369–70.
The district court did not err by dismissing Moussignac’s removal action for
lack of jurisdiction because the federal judiciary has traditionally abstained from
deciding cases concerning domestic relations. Even though the domestic relations
exception does not justify abstention in all diversity cases involving intra-family
disputes, there is no diversity of citizenship in this case since Moussignac and the
GDHR are residents of Georgia. Accordingly, because the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over Moussignac’s removal action, it did not err by
dismissing the case.1
AFFIRMED.
1
We also agree with the district court’s assessment that Mounssignac failed to comply
with the removal procedure of 28 U.S.C. § 1446. First, Moussignac did not submit any
documents, such as copies of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon him in the state
action initiated against him by the GDHR. Second, he failed to specify the grounds for removal.
Finally, Moussignac’s notice of removal was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
3