Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50377/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50377-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50377

Summary Calendar

CAROLE A. WALLACE; DENNIS A. WALLACE, JR.,

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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50377 Document: 00513365362 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/02/2016
No. 15-50377

2

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.

 Case: 15-50377 Document: 00513365362 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/02/2016