Case Name: Preston D. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lossie Howard HOPKINS, Operating as the Executrix of a Will Under the Laws of Texas; Sharion Fisher, Attorney operating as an Official of the Court who drafted and probated the applications in their capacity of fraud upon the Court, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-03
Citations: 228 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 06-41503
Parties: Preston D. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lossie Howard HOPKINS, Operating as the Executrix of a Will Under the Laws of Texas; Sharion Fisher, Attorney operating as an Official of the Court who drafted and probated the applications in their capacity of fraud upon the Court, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
Preston D. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lossie Howard HOPKINS, Operating as the Executrix of a Will Under the Laws of Texas; Sharion Fisher, Attorney operating as an Official of the Court who drafted and probated the applications in their capacity of fraud upon the Court, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-41503
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 3, 2007.
Preston D. Howard, pro se.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Preston Howard, pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his claims relating to the probate of a will for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm. Howard's original complaint, filed against Lossie Edward Hopkins, the executrix of the will, and against Sharion Fisher, an attorney involved in the probate of that will, asserted various general allegations that Hopkins and Fisher "conspired and confederated together and fraudulently collected certain monies" from the estate. Howard's amended complaint, submitted in response to a court order seeking clarification of Howard's claims, alleged that Hopkins and Fisher "acted under color of law and used the state laws to violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights." The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned recommended that Howard's claim be dismissed, and the district court agreed.
Howard's complaint was properly dismissed. Hopkins and Fisher are private citizens, not government employees. Although private persons willfully participating with the state act under color of state law, the complaint does not contain facts showing that either Hopkins or Fisher did so. Sarmiento, D.V.M. v. Tex. Bd. of Vet erinary Med. Exam'rs, 939 F.2d 1242, 1245-46, 1248 (5th Cir.1991).
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.