Case: 14-11017 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11017
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-22201-KMM,
Bkcy No. 13-bkc-01149-LMI
In re:
JAVIER MILIAN,
IVETTE MILIAN,
Debtors.
__________________________________________________________________
JAVIER MILIAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
WELLS FARGO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 14-11017 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(January 7, 2015)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Javier Milian, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s affirmance of
the bankruptcy court’s order abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over his
adversary complaint. The bankruptcy court determined that abstention was
necessary and appropriate based on its conclusion that Milian was attempting to
use the bankruptcy court to avoid or delay litigating a related mortgage foreclosure
case in state court. On appeal, the district court concluded that the bankruptcy
court did not err in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over Milian’s adversary
complaint. The district court also addressed two additional issues in its order.
On appeal, Milian contends that he was denied procedural due process and
equal protection under the law by the bankruptcy court’s decision to decline to
exercise jurisdiction over his adversary complaint. He argues that the bankruptcy
court was biased against him and maintains that it should have exercised discretion
over his claims because they were federal in nature. He also alleges that the
district court did not conduct a proper and full review of his claims, but rather
2
Case: 14-11017 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3
deferred to the bankruptcy court’s findings and the defendants’ pleadings. He
argues that the case did not favor abstention. Finally, he reiterates his assertion
that the defendants do not hold the promissory note or the mortgage to his
property.
“As the second court to review the judgment of the bankruptcy court, we
review the order of the bankruptcy court independently of the district court.”
Senior Transeastern Lenders v. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors, 680 F.3d
1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard
than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1334(d): “[a]ny decision to abstain or not to abstain made under
section (c) . . . is not reviewable by appeal or otherwise by the court of appeals . . .
.” 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d).
Pursuant to § 1334(d), we lack jurisdiction to consider the bankruptcy
court’s decision to abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c). Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, to the extent that the district court
addressed issues beyond abstention, those parts of the order are vacated.
VACATED IN PART AND DISMISSED.
3