Opinion
Case No. 18-CV-1685 (SRN/TNL)
07-12-2018
ANTHONY AKITI, Plaintiff, v. FARTUN BASHIR YUSUF, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Anthony Akiti brings this action seeking a divorce from defendant Fartun Bashir Yusuf. See ECF No. 1. "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Federal district courts wholly lack subject-matter jurisdiction to preside directly over divorce proceedings. See, e.g., Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. 582, 584 (1858). No federal question is presented by the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and even if diversity of citizenship could be established between the parties, the domestic-relations exception to diversity jurisdiction "divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody." Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994). Simply put, Akiti needs to bring this action in state court, not federal court. Accordingly, it is hereby recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Although Akiti is currently detained pending removal from the United States, he does not appear to be a "prisoner" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h) at this time. Accordingly, no filing fee will be assessed for this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). --------
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
1. This matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.Dated: July 12, 2018
2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Anthony Akiti [ECF No. 2] be DENIED AS MOOT.
s/Tony N . Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), "a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy" of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).