Carole Wallace, et al v. Barbara Hernandez, No. 15-50377 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-50377 Document: 00513365362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-50377 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 2, 2016 CAROLE A. WALLACE; DENNIS A. WALLACE, JR., Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiffs - Appellants v. BARBARA W. HERNANDEZ, Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:14-CV-691 Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 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 (1923); D.C. Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The dismissal is reviewed de novo. E.g., Lane v. Halliburton, 529 F.3d 548, 557 (5th Cir. 2008). Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 15-50377 Document: 00513365362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2016 No. 15-50377 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 statecourt decision, the court lacks subject matter 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, the 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 RookerFeldman 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. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
