In Re Linda Jane Hart

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER. Hart's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be, and is hereby, dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons discussed herein, the court further ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is hereby, denied. Lastly, the court ORDERS that all pending motions be, and are hereby, denied as moot. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 7/9/2014) (npk)

u.s. DISTIUCT COURT

NORTHERJ.~ DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FILED

IN RE LINDA JANE HART,
Petitioner,

s
s
s

No. 4:14-CV-526-A

MEMORANDUM OPINION
and
ORDER

This is a purported petition for writ of habeas corpus filed
by Linda Jane Hart, an alleged incapacitated person.

After

having considered the petition and the relief sought by Hart, the
court has concluded that the petition should be summarily
dismissed for lack of sUbject matter jurisdiction.
I.

Discussion

By way of this habeas action, Hart appears to challenge the
legality of pending state probate court proceedings and orders
regarding her capacity and temporary guardianship.
No. 1. 1

Pet. 1-3, ECF

Hart complains that she has no access to monetary funds

because the temporary guardian has put her funds "out of her
reach."

Id. at 3.

This court has the duty to assure that it has jurisdiction
over the matters before it.

See Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany,

187 F.3d 452, 465-66 (5th Cir. 1999)

i

MeG, Inc. v. Great W.

l Th e pages of the petition are not paginated, therefore the pagination in
the ECF header is followed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _-------..

Energy Corp.,

896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).

Hart asserts-

It is appropriate to raise this issue in federal
court because . . . it is a heinous perversion of
justice by a state court the remedies of which could
not be had in TX courts in the same county, and/or
because my estate is located in at least TX and OK
giving rise to the need for federal relief.
Pet. 2, ECF No. 1 (emphasis in original) .
However, generally, for this court to have subject matter
jurisdiction over a claim under the federal habeas statutes, the
petitioner must be "in custody" pursuant to some government
action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United
States.

28 U.S.C.

ss

2254(a)

&

2241(c) (3). A federal court lacks

sUbject matter jurisdiction to entertain a habeas action if, at
the time the habeas petition is filed,
custody."

the petitioner is not "in

Hart is not in the custody of the state but instead

resides at her home in Benbrook, Texas.

Furthermore, federal

courts are generally precluded from handling probate matters.
Marshall v. Marshall,

547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006).

For the reasons discussed herein,
The court ORDERS Hart's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
be, and is hereby, dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

For the reasons discussed herein, the court

further ORDERS that a certificate of appealability be, and is

2

hereby, denied.

Lastly, the court ORDERS that all pending

motions be, and are hereby, denied as moot.
SIGNED July

q

, 2014.

3