(HC) Cartwright v. Youngblood, No. 1:2010cv00839 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/11/10: Recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED, with prejudice for lack of habeas jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Henry Cartwright. Objections to F&R due by 7/7/2010, Reply due 14 days after service of the objections. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Cartwright v. Youngblood Doc. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HENRY CARTWRIGHT, 12 13 Petitioner, v. 14 15 16 DONNY YOUNGBLOOD Kern County Sheriff, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:10-cv-00839-AWI-JLT HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION (Doc. 1) ORDER DIRECTING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS 17 18 19 20 21 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 13, 2010, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, 22 challenging the order of the Kern County Superior Court that terminated Petitioner’s 23 “reunification services” on October 22, 2008 and terminated Petitioner’s parental rights with his 24 children on February 19, 2009. (Doc. 1). The petition also challenges the state appellate court’s 25 refusal to correct the Superior Court’s rulings. (Id.). Petitioner contends that he was not given 26 proper notice of the October 22, 2008 hearing and that, while in pre-trial detention in the Kern 27 County jail, he attended a court hearing on February 19, 2009 after which Petitioner’s parental 28 rights were terminated. (Doc. 1, p. 10). Petitioner contends that his due process rights were 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 violated by the state court and his attorney in failing to give him proper notice of these hearings. 2 (Id.). Petitioner also argues that the state court order terminating his parental rights should be 3 modified. (Id., p. 18). 4 DISCUSSION 5 A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal 6 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part: 7 If it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified. 8 9 Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir.1990). A district court may entertain a 10 petition for writ of habeas corpus "on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a 11 State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 12 treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. S § 2254(a). The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 13 indicate that the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus, either on its own motion 14 under Rule 4, or pursuant to the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the 15 petition has been filed. 16 B. Lack Of Habeas Jurisdiction Over Child Custody Or Parental Rights Issues. 17 The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Subsection (c) of Section 2241 18 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner 19 unless he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) states: 20 21 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 22 23 (emphasis added). See also, Rule 1 to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 24 States District Court. The Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack 25 by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 26 484 (1973). Furthermore, in order to succeed in a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 27 Petitioner must demonstrate that the adjudication of his claim in state court 28 resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application 2 1 2 of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 3 4 5 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1),(2). In the instant case, Petitioner fails to state a cognizable federal claim. Petitioner does not 6 allege a violation of the Constitution or federal law, nor does he argue that he is in custody in 7 violation of the Constitution or federal law. Instead, Petitioner maintains that the state courts 8 failed to give Petitioner proper notice of two hearings divesting Petitioner of parental rights and 9 “reunification services.” Petitioner also maintains that his attorneys in those proceedings 10 provided ineffective assistance in failing to give sufficient notice to Petitioner of those hearings 11 that Petitioner could appear at those hearings. Such claims do not invoke the habeas jurisdiction 12 of this Court. 13 Federal courts are to decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations. See, 14 e.g., In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53 (1890); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 15 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983). Specifically, the United States Supreme Court has held that habeas 16 corpus relief is not available to challenge a state court’s decision on parental rights or child 17 custody. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services, 458 U.S. 502, 511-12, 102 S.Ct. 18 3231, 3237-38 (1982); see also Roman-Nose v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Services, 967 F.2d 19 435, 436 (10th Cir.1992). Reasoning that state-ordered child custody does not raise the concerns 20 and restrictions customarily associated with habeas corpus relief, the Supreme Court in Lehman 21 stated: “[t]he federal writ of habeas corpus, representing as it does a profound interference with 22 state judicial systems and the finality of state decisions, should be reserved for those instances in 23 which the federal interest in individual liberty is so strong that it outweighs federalism and 24 finality concerns.” Id. at 516. 25 Here, Petitioner does not challenge the fact or duration of his present confinement. Since 26 the only relief this Court can afford a habeas petitioner is an order granting him his freedom, the 27 Court, in a federal habeas proceeding, necessarily lacks both the jurisdiction to intervene in a 28 California court’s decisions regarding parental rights and the power to correct the mistakes, if 3 1 any, committed by those state courts in domestic relations proceedings. 2 3 RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 4 corpus be DISMISSED with prejudice for lack of habeas jurisdiction and failure to state a claim 5 upon which habeas relief can be granted. 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 7 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 8 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 9 Within twenty days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 10 with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections 11 to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served 12 and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the 13 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 14 failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 15 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: June 11, 2010 9j7khi /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
