IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DIVISION OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION JOHN HORTON PLAINTIFF v. 4:22-CV-00264-BRW JODI HUGGINS DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is committing “tortious interference [with Plaintiff’s] inheritance” in a case pending in an Oklahoma state court involving the Estate of Burl Horton.1 Although he uses the term “tortious interference,” Plaintiff’s claim is “based primarily on Oklahoma probate procedure” and he is contesting the validity of a will that is part of an on-going probate case.2 Plaintiff asserts that Defendant “is not the biological offspring of the decedent and therefore is not competent to file the petition for the probate of the purported will of Burl Horton.3 Plaintiff’s claims fall squarely within the “probate exception.”4 Accordingly, abstention is

appropriate and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2022. Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1Doc. No. 2. 2Id. 3Id. 4Marshall v. Marshall,

, 311–12 (2006) (“[T]he probate exception reserves to state probate courts the probate or annulment of a will and the administration of a decedent's