M. Eugene Gibbs v. Barbara Albytine Gibbs, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-10286
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
In re: BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS,
Debtor.
___________________________________________________
M. EUGENE GIBBS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BARBARA ALBYTINE GIBBS,
Defendant-Appellant,
USCA11 Case: 21-10286 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 1 of 5

-- 1 of 5 --

2 Opinion of the Court 21-10286
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
d.b.a. Mr. Cooper,
BANK OF AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-01928-MHC,
Bkcy No. 1:19-bk-54809-WLH
____________________
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, JILL PRYOR and
BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
M. Eugene Gibbs appeals
pro se several orders entered in an
adversary proceeding he filed against his wife, Barbara Gibbs, who
is a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding; her lender, Bank of Amer-
ica; and its assignee, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. We previously dis-
missed as unreviewable the part of Gibbs’s appeal that challenged
the decision of the bankruptcy court to abstain from hearing his
adversary complaint.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d). Gibbs also has filed a
“Motion for Clarification, [Legal Opinion] and
en banc Review,”
which we construe as a motion to reconsider the partial dismissal
USCA11 Case: 21-10286 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 2 of 5

-- 2 of 5 --

21-10286 Opinion of the Court 3
of his appeal, and motions for a summary reversal and to expedite
our ruling. We deny as moot Gibbs’s motions, and we dismiss his
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Gibbs filed an adversary complaint in Barbara’s bankruptcy
proceeding that challenged a non-judicial foreclosure on their resi-
dence. A clerk entered default judgments against Bank of America
and Nationstar. The bankruptcy court vacated the default judg-
ment against Bank of America for insufficient service of process.
And after Gibbs filed a second amended complaint, the bankruptcy
court vacated the default judgment against Nationstar. The bank-
ruptcy court denied Gibbs’s renewed motion for default judgment
against Bank of America and then abstained from hearing his com-
plaint,
id. § 1334(c)(1). Gibbs moved to alter or amend the judg-
ment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).
Gibbs appealed to the district court. Later, the bankruptcy
court denied Gibbs’s motion to alter or amend. Gibbs next moved
the bankruptcy court to recuse and to grant him relief from its judg-
ment, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, but the bankruptcy court denied both mo-
tions. Gibbs did not amend his notice of appeal to include the denial
of his postjudgment motions. The district court affirmed the judg-
ment of the bankruptcy court and dismissed Gibbs’s appeal.
In this appeal, Gibbs repeats his arguments concerning the
default judgments and challenges the denial of his postjudgment
motions and his motion for recusal. Gibbs also asserts that he “is
not limited to a de novo appeal to the district court . . . [because]
the bankruptcy court abstain[ed] after making substantive rulings.”
USCA11 Case: 21-10286 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 3 of 5

-- 3 of 5 --

4 Opinion of the Court 21-10286
We may not give opinions on moot questions.
Zinni v. ER
Sols., 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012). An issue becomes moot
when it no longer presents a “live” controversy or a ruling on the
issues would have no practical significance.
Christian Coal. of Fla.,
Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011). To de-
termine whether an issue is moot, we “look at the events at the
present time, not at the time the complaint was filed or when the
federal order on review was issued.”
Dow Jones & Co. v. Kaye, 256
F.3d 1251, 1254 (11th Cir. 2001). So “[w]hen events subsequent to
the commencement of a lawsuit create a situation in which the
court can no longer give the plaintiff meaningful relief, the case is
moot and must be dismissed.”
Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities v. State
of Fla. Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217 (11th
Cir. 2000). And because mootness is jurisdictional in nature, we
may address it
sua sponte.
Nat’l Advert. Co. v. City of Miami, 402
F.3d 1329, 1331–32 (11th Cir. 2005).
Many of Gibbs’s arguments are moot. We cannot grant ef-
fective relief in an adversary proceeding where the bankruptcy
court has abstained from exercising jurisdiction.
See Dow Jones,
256 F.3d at 1254;
Fla. Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, 225 F.3d at 1217.
And we cannot review that decision to abstain. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(d).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Gibbs’s mo-
tions to recuse the bankruptcy court and to alter or amend its judg-
ment. “Although a
district court, at its discretion, may review in-
terlocutory judgments and orders of a bankruptcy court,
see 28
U.S.C. § 158(a), a
court of appeals has jurisdiction over only final
USCA11 Case: 21-10286 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 4 of 5

-- 4 of 5 --

21-10286 Opinion of the Court 5
judgments and orders entered by a district court or a bankruptcy
appellate panel sitting in review of a bankruptcy court,
see [
id.]
§ 158(d).”
In re Celotex Corp., 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012)
(quoting
In re F.D.R. Hickory House, Inc., 60 F.3d 724, 725 (11th
Cir. 1995)). And we cannot review rulings of the bankruptcy court
that Gibbs did not appeal to the district court.
We DISMISS Gibbs’s appeal and DENY AS MOOT his mo-
tions to reconsider, summarily reverse, and expedite our ruling.
USCA11 Case: 21-10286 Date Filed: 11/02/2021 Page: 5 of 5

-- 5 of 5 --