Wood v. County of Contra Costa ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ANDREA C. WOOD, 11 Case No. 21-02203 EJD (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 13 JURISDICTION; DENYING 14 COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, C AE PPR ET AIF LI AC BA IT LE IT O Y F 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Andrea C. Wood has filed a filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the unlawful detention of two of her 20 minor children by Contra Costa County (“County”). Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner paid the filing 21 fee. Dkt. No. 2. For the reasons discussed below, this matter must be dismissed. 22 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Standard of Review 25 This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person “in 26 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 27 § 2241(c)(3). The court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to 1 the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 2 B. Analysis 3 Petitioner refers to two other cases in her papers. She first cites to “Related Case: 4 19-cv-3885-SK” on the cover sheet of the petition, and the following attached pages 5 appear to be a copy of an appeal filed in the Ninth Circuit of Case No. 19-cv-04266-MMC, 6 id. at 2-4. The first case, No. 19-cv-3885-SK, was a previous § 2241 habeas petition 7 before this Court, in which Petitioner sought immediate release of her children from the 8 custody of the State. The Court granted Respondent’s motion and dismissed the action for 9 lack of subject matter jurisdiction on November 22, 2019. See Wood v. County of Contra 10 Costa, et al., Case No. 19-03885 EJD (PR), Dkt. No. 55. It does not appear that Petitioner 11 appealed that matter to the Ninth Circuit. Alongside that habeas action, Petitioner filed a 12 separate civil rights action seeking damages and injunctive relief. See Wood v. County of 13 Contra Costa, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04266-MMD. That action was also dismissed for lack 14 of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine on October 8, 2019. Id., 15 Dkt. No. 54.1 16 In the instant action, Petitioner Wood is again seeking a remedy for the allegedly 17 unlawful detention of her two minor children, HP, and KP, by the County. Dkt. No. 1 at 7. 18 As in the previous § 2241 petition, Petitioner claims her children were removed from their 19 home on August 17, 2017, “without an Access Order, without warrant, no authorization to 20 enter, and without an Order of Temporary Removal,” all in violation of due process. Dkt. 21 No. 1 at 11; compare Wood v. County of Contra Costa, et al., Case No. 19-03885 EJD 22 (PR), Dkt. No. 7 at 8-9. As before, Petitioner seeks the immediate release of her children 23 from the custody of the State and to recover survivor benefits, among other relief. Dkt. 24 No. 1 at 27. 25 This case must be dismissed for the same reason that Petitioner’s prior § 2241 26 1 “Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, ‘federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review 27 the final determinations of a state court in judicial proceedings,’ even where ‘the challenge 1 petition was dismissed. In Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Services, the Supreme 2 Court addressed the issue of whether federal habeas corpus jurisdiction may be invoked to 3 challenge the constitutionality of a state statute under which a State has obtained custody 4 of children and has terminated involuntarily the parental rights of their natural parent. 458 5 U.S. 502, 507 (1982). As in the instant case, the petitioner in Lehman was seeking to 6 regain custody of her children from the State after they had placed in foster care. Id. at 7 502. In holding that federal habeas relief is unavailable in child custody cases, the 8 Supreme Court found that federal habeas corpus has never been available to challenge 9 parental rights or child custody. Id. at 511. A federal habeas petition challenging a state’s 10 child-custody determination simply seeks to relitigate the petitioner’s interest in his or her 11 own parental rights. See id. A federal court has no jurisdiction to relitigate these interests; 12 federal courts are not courts of appeal from state decisions. See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 13 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). To extend the federal writ to challenges to state child-custody 14 decisions based on alleged constitutional defects collateral to the actual custody decision 15 would be an unprecedented expansion of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See 16 Lehman, 458 U.S. at 512. 17 Based on the clear Supreme Court precedent on the matter, this action must be 18 dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 19 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows: 22 This action is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, a 23 Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. See Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 24 2254 Cases. Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial of a 25 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Nor has Petitioner demonstrated that 26 “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 27 debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Petitioner may not 1 || from the Court of Appeals under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See 2 || Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 3 IT ISSO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: _ 8/11/2021 feet} Y= CS EDWARD J. DAVILA 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 = 13 g 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dismissal; Deny COA P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.21\02203 Wood_dism(juris) 26 27 28