Roberts v. Culle et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
SUNSARRI ROBERTS, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00130-O-BP
§
JESSICA CULLE, et al., 	§
§
Defendants. 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On December 29, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Sunsarri Roberts filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus against Defendants Jessica Culle, Susan Worthington, and Christina Cook, alleging that
she is entitled to possession of her children under an existing court order for possession. ECF No.
1 at 3. Roberts seeks a court order for conservatorship of her three children. Id. She requests a writ
of habeas corpus “[c]ommanding that the Respondent bring the children before this Court for a
hearing; after the hearing, [she] ask[s] the Court to order that the children be returned to [her].” Id.
The case was automatically referred to the undersigned under Special Order 3 on January
2, 2026. ECF No. 3. After reviewing Roberts’ petition and the applicable legal authorities, the
undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor DISMISS
the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice.
A petition for habeas corpus “is the proper procedural vehicle if a prisoner ‘challenges the
execution of [her] sentence rather than the validity of [her] conviction and sentence.’” Gallegos-
Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d 190, 194 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Cleto, 956
F.2d 83, 84 (5th Cir. 1992)). And while “modern cases have extended [a petition for habeas corpus]
to other situations involving challenges to state-court decisions,” Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty.
Case 7:25-cv-00130-O-BP Document 9 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 508 (1982), “the reach of habeas corpus does not extend
to a petitioner not challenging [her] holding conviction but instead the termination of [her] parental
rights.” Montemayor v. Dallas Cnty. Child Protective Services, No. 3:18-cv-3216-L-BN, 2018 WL
7118011, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018), rec. adopted, No. 3:18-cv-3216-L-BN, 2019 WL
318365 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) (internal citation and quotations omitted).
“Federal courts are authorized, under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, to dispose of habeas corpus matters
as law and justice require.” Montemayor, 2018 WL 7118011, at *1 (citing Hilton v. Braunskill,
481 U.S. 770, 775 (1987)) (internal quotations omitted). “That statute ‘authorizes a district court
to summarily dismiss a frivolous habeas-corpus petition prior to any answer or other pleading by
the government.’” Id. (citing Gatte v. Upton, No. 4:14-cv-376-Y, 2014 WL 2700656, at *1 (N.D.
Tex. June 13, 2014)). This case concerns the custody of Roberts’ children whom Roberts claims
are being illegally held in Oklahoma. See ECF No. 1. The Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to
consider Roberts’ habeas petition because she “requests direct federal review” of decisions of child
custody. Montemayor, 2018 WL 7118011, at *2 (citing Anderson v. Anderson, No. 4:14-cv-336-
O, 2014 WL 3500151, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Tex. July 15, 2014) (“Nor may Petitioner invoke federal
habeas corpus jurisdiction to challenge [] state proceedings, his parental rights, child custody or
the other relief he seeks in his petition.”).
Absent jurisdiction conferred by statute or the Constitution, the federal district court does
not have the power to adjudicate claims and must dismiss an action if subject-matter jurisdiction
is lacking. Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing Veldhoen
v. United States Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994)). Dismissal for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction should be without prejudice because it “is not a determination of the merits and
does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction.”
Case 7:25-cv-00130-O-BP Document 9 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena, 561
F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977)).
Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Chief Judge O’Connor DISMISS
Petitioner Roberts’ application for writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
without prejudice.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties
in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions,
and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with
a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1). To be specific, an objection
must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis
for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates
by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and
legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except
upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th
Cir. 1996) (en banc), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the
time to file objections to 14 days).
SIGNED on January 14, 2026.
______________________________________
Hal R. Ray, Jr.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00130-O-BP Document 9 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>