Case: 18-15166 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15166 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-01717-TWT TANYA SINGH DIXIT, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AKASH DIXIT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (November 5, 2019) Before MARCUS, DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-15166 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Appellant Akash Dixit appeals, pro se, the district court’s denial of his three post-judgment motions (1) for review of possible judicial incompetence, (2) for relief from final judgment, and (3) to “vacate all inhuman and unconstitutional orders of separating minor children from their parents who are legal residents of the [United States]” (“motion to vacate separation orders”), which he filed after the district court sua sponte remanded his removed domestic relations’ action back to state court for lack of jurisdiction, denied his construed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration, and denied his motion for e-filing access and waiver of fees. As relevant background, Dixit already unsuccessfully appealed from the district court’s remand order and denial of his construed Rule 59(e) motion, and, although he did not raise the issue on appeal, the district court’s denial of his motion for e-filing access and waiver of fees. Dixit v. Dixit, 769 F. App’x 879, 881 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished). In this appeal, Dixit primarily challenges the district court’s initial order remanding his case back to state court. He argues that the district court: (1) had limited jurisdiction to vacate a state court order “that [was] void on its face”; (2) erred in its original jurisdictional determination because the state courts were “siding with [his ex-spouse’s] white skinned attorney”; (3) erred in determining that his case was a domestic relations case rather than a “fraudulent immigration attempt” by his ex-spouse; and (4) erred in alternatively determining that the time 2 Case: 18-15166 Date Filed: 11/05/2019 Page: 3 of 6 period for removal had expired after the September 2016 service, as he alleges that he was never served. Notably, he does not address the district court’s denial of his three post-judgment motions for review of possible judicial incompetence, for relief from final judgment, and to vacate separation orders, although he did mention these issues in separately filed motions. We will address each issue in turn. I. We have an obligation to satisfy ourselves of our own jurisdiction and may raise the issue sua sponte. AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 494 F.3d 1356, 1360 (11th Cir. 2007). We review jurisdictional issues de novo. Id. The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in a civil action. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007). Generally, a notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed no later than 30 days after the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals