Carole Wallace v. Barbara Hernandez

Fifth Circuit

Carole Wallace v. Barbara Hernandez

631 F. App'x 257

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 2, 2016

Docket15-50377

StatusUnpublished

This text of 631 F. App'x 257 (Carole Wallace v. Barbara Hernandez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carole Wallace v. Barbara Hernandez, 631 F. App'x 257 (5th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding pro se, Carole A. Wallace and Dennis A. Wallace, Jr., appeal the dismissal, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, of their challenge to a state probate court’s ruling Barbara W. Hernandez is an heir of their mother, Ruby Greer Wallace. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The dismissal is reviewed de novo. E.g., Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir.2008).

The Wallaces maintain they do not challenge the state-court judgment and only request a declaratory judgment to define their rights. Nevertheless, in expressly seeking the reversal of the state-court ruling that Hernandez is their relative, the Wallaces point to both the claimed deficiency of the DNA test relied upon by the state courts and the alleged inadequacies of Texas probate law, amounting to claimed constitutional violations of due process. “When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter *258 jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although pro se briefs are liberally 'construed, thé contentions in them must be adequately briefed to be preserved. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8). Because the Wallaces do not address the district court’s jurisdictional rulings under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and concerning their due-process claims, they abandon any challenge they may have had to the court’s rulings. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding pro se, Carole A. Wallace and Dennis A. Wallace, Jr., appeal the dismissal, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, of their challenge to a state probate court’s ruling Barbara W. Hernandez is an heir of their mother, Ruby Greer Wallace. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1); Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The dismissal is reviewed de novo. E.g., Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir.2008).

The Wallaces maintain they do not challenge the state-court judgment and only request a declaratory judgment to define their rights. Nevertheless, in expressly seeking the reversal of the state-court ruling that Hernandez is their relative, the Wallaces point to both the claimed deficiency of the DNA test relied upon by the state courts and the alleged inadequacies of Texas probate law, amounting to claimed constitutional violations of due process. “When issues raised in a federal court are inextricably intertwined with a state judgment and the court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision, the court lacks subject matter *258 jurisdiction to conduct such a review.” Davis v. Bayless, 70 F.3d 367, 375 (5th Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Although pro se briefs are liberally 'construed, thé contentions in them must be adequately briefed to be preserved. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993); Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(8). Because the Wallaces do not address the district court’s jurisdictional rulings under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and concerning their due-process claims, they abandon any challenge they may have had to the court’s rulings. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 224-25; Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir.1987).

AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

631 F. App'x 257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carole-wallace-v-barbara-hernandez-ca5-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack