[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3 
2

________________________

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 

Case: 14-11017 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 2 of 3 
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.

Case: 14-11017 Date Filed: 01/07/2015 Page: 3 of 3