No. 24-6531

Mary Ruffin v. Mark Henry

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2025-02-10
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: court-fees fourteenth-amendment judicial-authority jurisdictional-challenge mandamus-writ procedural-due-process
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2025-04-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether multiple procedural due process violations occurred in a case involving jurisdictional challenges, court fees, and judicial authority under the Fourteenth Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Whether the lower court's failure to honor a Statement of Inability to 1. Afford Payment of Court Costs after filing, without any contest, thereby imposing improper bond fees, violated the petitioner's procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether a judge ’s ruling is valid when the court explicitly states it lacks 2. jurisdiction over the case, and whether such a ruling constitutes an overreach of judicial authority which leads to the violation of the Fourteenth Amendment? Whether the Civil Court at Law violated the petitioner's procedural due 3. process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by ordering the petitioner to pay $16,350 in attorney fees, despite lacking jurisdiction under de novo review, as the Justice of the Peace Court lacked initial jurisdiction. Whether it is legally permissible for an attorney to charge for legal fees for 4. actions such as filing a Writ of Mandamus in a court that is known to lack jurisdiction, thereby wasting time and resources of the opposing party (causing undue hardship), and whether such fees can be deemed reasonable under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 74.351(b)(1)." Whether the Court of Appeals violated the petitioner's procedural due 5. . process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by ruling that the Justice of the Peace Court has exclusive jurisdiction over healthcare claims, in conflict with legislative determinations regarding the types of cases that can be heard in the Justice of the Peace Court, thus necessitating clarification on jurisdictional authority. Whether a mandate and subsequent judicial actions are valid when the 6. original transfer of the case to the presiding judge was incomplete, lacking the necessary judicial signature, thereby questioning the authority under which the mandate was rendered, thus violating the petitioner's procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. ii

Docket Entries

2025-04-21
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
2025-03-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
2025-01-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 12, 2025)

Attorneys

Mary Ruffin
Mary Ruffin — Petitioner
Mary Ruffin — Petitioner