ARLENA WILLES V. ARIZONA DEPT. OF CHILD SAFETY, No. 19-15723 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 13 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARLENA MINERVA WILLES, on behalf of J.D.Z. in the custody of the Child Safety Services, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-15723 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00068-JJT-JFM Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SAFETY, named as Department of Child Services (Safety) in original Petition; MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT, named as Juvinille Court in original Petition, MEMORANDUM* Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Arlena Minerva Willes appeals pro se from the district court’s order * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and we affirm. Willes contends that the district court erred by dismissing her section 2254 petition, which challenged proceedings in Arizona state court regarding the custody of her minor son. The district court correctly determined that section 2254 does not confer federal habeas jurisdiction over challenges to state child custody proceedings. See Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 515-16 (1982). Willes’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that respondents caused severe emotional distress is not properly before the court, see Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994), and is not cognizable in habeas, see Nettles, 830 F.3d at 929-35 (claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement). Appellant’s motion to supplement the record is granted. The Clerk is directed to maintain the documents filed at Docket Entry No. 10 under seal. Appellant’s motion to submit a supplemental brief is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 19-15723
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.
