(HC) Coleman v. Unknown

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 26, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-03012
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE COLEMAN, No. 2:23-cv-03012-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 UNKNOWN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, an unincarcerated individual proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus. Petitioner asserts that this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2242, 19 2255 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 20 As best the court can discern, petitioner wishes to challenge an order of the Sacramento 21 County Superior Court granting guardianship of her minor child to the child’s biological father 22 and his mother. ECF No. 1. 23 Children whose custody has been determined through state proceedings, but who are not 24 incarcerated, are not “in custody” for purposes of the federal habeas corpus statutes. Lehman v. 25 Lycoming Cnty. Children's Servs Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 512-16 (1982) (“extending the federal 26 writ to challenges to state child-custody decisions – challenges based on alleged constitutional 27 defects collateral to the actual custody decision – would be an unprecedented expansion of the 28 jurisdiction of the lower federal courts”); see also Bell v. Dept. of Social and Health Servs., 382 1 | Fed. Appx. 669, 670 (9th Cir. 2010) (federal courts lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate habeas 2 || petitioner’s challenge to constitutionality of state’s termination of his parental rights); Cuca/on v. 3 | Rice, 317 Fed. Appx. 602, 603 (9th Cir. 2008) (“state court judgments concerning child custody 4 | matters are beyond the purview of habeas corpus.”). 5 Nor may petitioner proceed in a combined habeas petition and action under 42 U.S.C. § 6 | 1983. Should petitioner wish to challenge the conduct of state actors through that (or another 7 | federal) statute, she may refile the action as a civil rights complaint. 8 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign a district 9 | judge to this action. It is further RECOMMENDED that the petition be dismissed without leave 10 | to amend for failure to state a cognizable habeas claim, but without prejudice to any refiling as a 11 | civil rights action. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 14 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 15 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 16 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 17 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 18 | parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 19 | appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 20 || v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 22 | Dated: August 23, 2024 Za 1 Ubtiza (LACH EDMUND F. BRENNAN 23 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28