Rory Scales v. Talladega County Department of, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Rory O'Neal Scales. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-15799

Date Filed: 10/24/2017

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 16-15799
Non-Argument Calendar
__________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-01195-VEH-SGC

RORY O’NEAL SCALES,
for A.L.S. A minor,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus

TALLADEGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES,
JUDGE RYAN RUMSEY, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA,
Respondents - Appellees.
__________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
__________________________
(October 24, 2017)

Case: 16-15799

Date Filed: 10/24/2017

Page: 2 of 3

Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS, and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Rory Scales, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his habeas corpus
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. His habeas
petition sought review of an order by the Juvenile Court of Talladega County in
Alabama that terminated his parental rights to A.L.S., a minor child. 1 Scales filed
the § 2254 action as the next friend of A.L.S. On appeal, Scales argues that the
district court violated A.L.S.’s due process and equal protection rights because he
dismissed the habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.2
In reviewing § 2254 habeas corpus petitions, we review de novo questions of
law and mixed questions of law and fact. Nyland v. Moore, 216 F.3d 1264, 1266
(11th Cir. 2000). We review findings of fact for clear error. Id.
A district court may entertain a habeas petition on “behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in
1

The Alabama juvenile court terminated Scales’s parental rights on February 21, 2013.
The court found that Scales and A.L.S.’s mother had “a long history of domestic violence which
has resulted in multiple incidents wherein law enforcement authorities have been forced to
respond.” Most egregiously, Scales attacked A.L.S’s mother with a hammer in the presence of
A.L.S, which put A.L.S.’s mother into the hospital. For this assault, Scales was convicted of
domestic violence in the second degree and received a ten-year prison sentence. He was released
after three years.
2

Liberally construed, Scales’s brief also requests that we appoint counsel for his appeal.
Since the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain his § 2254 petition, Scales
cannot show that appointment of counsel is required to help him present the merits of his
petition. See Kilgo v. Ricks, 983 F.2d 189, 193 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that counsel must be
appointed only where “the pro se litigant needs help in presenting the essential merits of his or
her position to the court”).
2

Case: 16-15799

Date Filed: 10/24/2017

Page: 3 of 3

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, the
Supreme Court held that § 2254(a) does not confer federal courts with jurisdiction
to consider collateral challenges to state court judgments that terminate parental
rights. 458 U.S. 502, 515–16, 102 S. Ct. 3231, 3239–40 (1982); see also
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 702, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 2215 (1992) (“We
conclude therefore, that the domestic relations exception, . . . divests the federal
courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.”). This
precedent settles this case.
Scales brought his § 2254 petition to challenge the state court judgment that
terminated his parental rights to A.L.S. Lehman held that the federal courts lack
jurisdiction over such a challenge, because “Congress has indicated no intention
that the reach of § 2254 encompass a claim like that of [Scales].” 548 U.S. at 516,
102 S. Ct. at 3240. The district court did not err in dismissing the petition for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED.

3