Hill v. The State of Texas et al, No. 3:2014cv02695 - Document 9 (N.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: Order Accepting 7 Findings and Recommendations on Case. The court overrules Plaintiff's objections and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 10/7/2014) (jrr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hill v. The State of Texas et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JIMMY DEWAYNE HILL, #1719333, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-2695-L ORDER Plaintiff Jimmy DeWayne Hill (“Plaintiff”) brought this action on July 28, 2014, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged due process violations by the State of Texas, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and the 363rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, who entered the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) on September 16, 2014, recommending that the action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a bar to Plaintiff’s due process claims based on insufficient evidence and the insufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. On September 27, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Report. Plaintiff contends that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to his insufficient evidence claims because he seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction to require the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to hear his evidence. Plaintiff contends that, when the Court of Criminal Appeals denied his habeas petition, it did so without a hearing and without specifically addressing his insufficient evidence claim. For Order – Page 1 Dockets.Justia.com the reasons set forth in the Report, the court concludes that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Accordingly, having reviewed the pleadings, file, objections, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court therefore overrules Plaintiff’s objections and dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is so ordered this 7th day of October, 2014. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Page 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.
