In re: In the Interest of G.A.W., a minor

4:25-cv-01813Moed15 de dez. de 2025

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
IN RE G.A.W., a Minor
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:25-cv-01813-JMD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF REMAND
Shannon Wallace removes In the Interest of G.A.W., a Minor, Case No. 21SL-JU00199,
a state juvenile proceeding pending in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. 	ECF 1. 	She
also submits a proposed temporary restraining order seeking to stay a state-court hearing
scheduled for December 16, 2025, ECF 1-3, which the Court construes as a motion for a
temporary restraining order. For the reasons below, the Court remands this case and denies
all pending motions.
First, Wallace has not provided the state-court papers needed to evaluate removal.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), a removing party must file “a copy of all process, pleadings, and
orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action.” 	Wallace’s filings do not
include the necessary documents from Case No. 21SL-JU00199. 	She provides only
documents relating to separate state-court guardianship proceedings. ECF 1-1. Without the
operative state-court filings for the instant juvenile matter, the Court cannot determine
whether removal is proper. Wallace has failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction.
Second, the asserted basis for removal—28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)—does not apply. Section
1443(1) permits removal only if the removing party (1) relies on a federal law “providing for
specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality,” Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792
Case: 4:25-cv-01813-JMD Doc. #: 5 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
2
(1966), and (2) shows she is “denied or cannot enforce” that right in state court, City of
Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 827–28 (1966).
Wallace does not satisfy either requirement. Her Notice of Removal invokes the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and relies on general family-law precedents
addressing parental rights and procedural protections. 	ECF 1 at 2. 	Such claims rest on
constitutional guarantees of general application, not on federal laws providing for specific
civil rights stated in terms of racial equality. See Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219
(1975). 	Wallace also fails to identify any state law or formal state-court rule that would
prevent enforcement of a qualifying federal right or otherwise establish that denial of such a
right is inevitable. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
Third, to the extent Wallace relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1446 as a basis for removal, that
statute governs the procedure for removal and does not itself confer federal jurisdiction or
create a substantive right permitting removal. 	See McHugh v. Physicians Health Plan of
Greater St. Louis, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 296, 299 (E.D. Mo. 1997) (explaining that the time limit
in § 1446(b) is procedural, not jurisdictional).
Fourth, federal courts lack jurisdiction over “an action for divorce, alimony or child
custody.” 	Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). 	This divestment of jurisdiction
extends to claims “closely” related to “an action for divorce, alimony or child custody,” even if
drafted to sound in another cause of action. 	Id. 	Because the limited filings in this case
establish that this case concerns child custody, ECF 1-3, this Court would not have
Case: 4:25-cv-01813-JMD Doc. #: 5 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>
3
jurisdiction even if the state court documents were filed and a proper federal cause of action
was asserted.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Circuit Court of
St. Louis County, Juvenile Division.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wallace’s motion for temporary restraining order,
ECF 1-3, is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wallace’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
ECF 2, is DENIED as moot.
Dated this 15th day of December, 2025
__________________________________
JOSHUA M. DIVINE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01813-JMD Doc. #: 5 Filed: 12/15/25 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.