Case Name: Pamela SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marilyn Elayne DANIEL, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-22
Citations: 79 F. App'x 56
Docket Number: No. 03-30608
Parties: Pamela SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marilyn Elayne DANIEL, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 56–57

Head Matter:
Pamela SHIRLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Marilyn Elayne DANIEL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-30608
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 22, 2003.
Pamela Shirley, Arabi, LA, pro se.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Shirley, a Louisiana resident and a non-prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to proceed informa pauper-is (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district court's certification that her appeal was not taken in good faith pursuant to Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.Bd 197, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1997). Shirley argues that the district court was not correct in its perception of the primary issue in the complaint. The federal courts have a long-standing policy of abstaining from the exercise of diversity jurisdiction in cases involving intrafamily relations, including child custody actions, known as the domestic relations exception. Congleton v. Holy Cross Child Placement Agency, Inc., 919 F.2d 1077, 1078 (5th Cir.1990). Although Shirley argues that her allegations do not place her case within this exception, the district court did not err in construing her complaint as essentially concerning the custody of her children.
The district court's certification that Shirley's appeal is not taken in good faith is upheld, Shirley's motion for IFP is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 and n. 24.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.