1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

AUTHOR J. MANNING JR.,

Plaintiff,

v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF 

TEXAS, IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.M., A 

MINOR;

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-CV-00003-JDK

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff Author J. Manning filed this civil action, proceeding pro 

se. Plaintiff did not pay the statutory filing fee or request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”); as 

a result, the court issued a deficiency order. (Doc. No. 4.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

proceed IFP. (Doc. No. 5.) Because Plaintiff has requested to proceed IFP, the court will review 

the pleadings in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, Plaintiff cites to a state court case in the 307th District Court of Gregg 

County that he identifies as case number “2001-1995-DR, The State [v.] Author Manning.” (Doc. 

No. 1, at 1.) Plaintiff states that he brings this federal action “[t]o reverse the opinion of the Trial 

Court.” Id. Plaintiff’s allegations state that an order of the trial court “was a[n] error” and alludes 

to an alleged incorrect paternity determination whereby Plaintiff was found to be the father of child 

April S.M. Id. Plaintiff appears to be alleging that he never took a paternity test and therefore that 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/24/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 16
2

any conclusion of the court that he was the father of said child was in error. Id. Plaintiff further 

alleges that the State falsified the paternity test, committing fraud against him. Id. at 2. 

DISCUSSION

Although Plaintiff’s allegations do not contain many facts and do not clearly delineate 

which federal claims he intends to assert, construing his claims liberally, it appears that Plaintiff 

requests that this court: (1) reverse the error of the state court regarding paternity; and (2) consider 

a claim of fraud against the State. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) provides that “[i]f the court determines at any 

time that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 

12(h)(3). Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain 

collateral attacks” on state-court judgments. Liedtke v. State Bar of Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 

1994); see Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 

U.S. 462 (1983). The doctrine applies to “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of 

injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced 

and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi 

Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005). The casting of a complaint in the form of a civil 

rights action cannot circumvent the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Hale v. Harney, 786 F.2d 688, 691 

(5th Cir. 1986). If the district court is asked to rule on issues that are “inextricably intertwined” 

with a state court judgment, that court is “in essence being called upon to review the state-court 

decision” and is therefore divested of jurisdiction. Feldman, 460 U.S. at 482. 

Here, it is readily apparent that Plaintiff’s allegations are inextricably intertwined with the 

state court’s rulings regarding the paternity of child April S.M. (Doc. No. 1.) As discussed above, 

Plaintiff alleges that he was incorrectly judged to be the father of April S.M. by the trial court due 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/24/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 17
3

to a falsified paternity test. Id. These allegations amount to a collateral attack on the state court’s 

judgment. If a federal question arose in the state proceeding, Plaintiff needed to raise it for the state 

court to resolve. Batista v. Carter, 796 F. App’x 209, 210 (5th Cir. 2020). If the state court erred, 

Plaintiff’s sole federal recourse after exhausting his state appeals was to apply for a writ of 

certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Id. Instead, Plaintiff has filed this complaint in 

federal district court. 

Further, to the extent that Plaintiff intends to allege an independent claim of fraud against 

the State, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over such a claim. Federal jurisdiction may be 

established through either federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331–

32. Federal question jurisdiction exists in civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 

treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Here, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts invoking 

a violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or treaty to which the United States is a party. 

Rather, Plaintiff’s allegations raise only a potential claim of fraud against the State. (See Doc. No. 

1, at 2.). Although Plaintiff references that the “fraud lead to false arrest and other charges,” (Doc. 

No. 1, at 2), Plaintiff provides no factual details with respect to any “false arrest” or “other 

charges.” As such, the court cannot liberally construe this statement as an allegation intending to 

assert a constitutional violation. On the facts before the court, no constitutional violation has been 

alleged. Rather, construing the complaint as a whole, it appears that Plaintiff is again referring 

solely to the alleged erroneous conduct of the state court for which any claim arising therefrom 

would be barred by Rooker-Feldman. These claims, construed liberally, do not invoke any federal 

question. Finally, Plaintiff has made no attempt to plead jurisdiction based upon diversity and the 

complaint is absent of facts that would give rise to diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court 

lacks jurisdiction over these claims, and they should be dismissed without prejudice. 

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/24/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 18
4

Because Plaintiff’s allegations are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment 

in Plaintiff’s paternity proceedings, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s claims under 

Rooker-Feldman. Further, as discussed, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

fraud claim. As a result, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s claims asserted 

in this matter be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 

Within fourteen (14) days after receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s Report, any party may 

serve and file written objections to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. A 

party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

contained in this Report within 14 days after service shall bar that party from de novo review by 

the district judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 

F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 24th day of January, 2024.

Case 6:24-cv-00003-JDK-JDL Document 7 Filed 01/24/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 19