Michael F. Langrock v. Sabrina F. Fricano

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF SEPARATE JUDGMENT; TERMINATING THE CASE (JS-6) by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. First, neither petitioner nor his children are in state custody for purposes of § 2254. Second, the State's strong interest in domestic relations and issues of child custody precludes federal habeas subject-matter jurisdiction. Finally, to the extent that Petitioner seeks redress for wr ongs committed in connection with the state court's granting of the move-away order, this Court lacks jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that the purported habeas petition therefore must be dismissed without prejudice. See order for further details. (hr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

MICHAEL F. LANGROCK,
Friend of Gianna S. Langrock and
Adam M. Langrock,

13

Petitioner,

14
15
16
17

v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY
OF VENTURA CALIFORNIA and
SABRINA F. FRICANO,

18

Case No. LA CV 18-00300-VBF-RAO
ORDER
SUMMARILY DISMISSING
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR
LACK OF JURISDICTION;
DIRECTING THE ENTRY OF
SEPARATE JUDGMENT;
TERMINATING THE CASE (JS-6)

Respondents.

19
20

BACKGROUND. On January 12, 2018, Michael F. Langrock (“Petitioner”)

21
22
23
24
25

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”)
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (CM/ECF Document (“Doc” 1.) Petitioner contends
that his two minor children are being held pursuant to a custody order entered by a
state judge in Ventura County Superior Court case number D362135. (Doc 1 at 1.) 1
Petitioner challenges the state court’s December 5, 2016 grant of a move-

26
27
28

away order that allowed his children to leave California. (Id. at 2.) Petitioner
1

The Court uses the pagination generated by the Court’s electronic docket.

1

asserts that, while he was in the custody of the Ventura County Sheriff’s

2

Department, he was prevented from attending the state proceedings at which the

3

move-away order was issued, in violation of his constitutional rights. (Id. at 6.)

4

Petitioner also alleges a conflict of interest, lack of counsel, gender discrimination,

5

age discrimination, and possible collusion. (Id. at 6-7.) Petitioner asserts that there

6

is good cause to hear the matters in federal court because he has had an inadequate

7

opportunity to litigate his claims at the state level. (Id. at 6.) Petitioner requests

8

that this Court take jurisdiction, vacate the December 5, 2016 state-court order,

9

order the return of his children to California, order appointment of counsel, and

10

return the matter to a neutral venue. (Id. at 7.)

11
12

DISCUSSION. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

13

United States District Courts provides that a petition for writ of habeas corpus must

14

be summarily dismissed if it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to

15

relief in the district court. After a review of the Petition, the Court determines that

16

it lacks jurisdiction and, accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed.

17

First, neither petitioner nor his children are in state custody for

18

purposes of § 2254.

Although petitioner’s children are in the custody of

19

respondent Fricano pursuant to state-court orders (see Pet. at 1), the “custody” of

20

guardians over children is not the type of custody that may generally be challenged

21

through federal habeas petitions. See Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs.

22

Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 511, 102 S. Ct. 3231, 3237 (1982); see, e.g., Anderson v.

23

Dep’t of Children and Family Servs., 2015 WL 1541513, *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 3,

24

2015) (Andre Birottte, J.) (“[A]lthough Petitioner’s children have been removed

25

from his custody pursuant to a California juvenile dependency hearing and are in

26

the custody of the DCFS . . . , for purposes of a section 2254 action petitioner’s

27

children are not considered to be ‘in custody.’”) (footnote 4 omitted). Cf. Erichsen

28

v. Orange County Soc. Servs. Agency, 2013 WL 6454690, *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 19,
2

1

2013) (George Wu, J.) (“It is true that, in a footnote in Lehman, the Supreme Court

2

stated that it expressed no view on the availability of federal habeas relief when a

3

child is confined in a state institution, rather than in the custody of a foster parent.

4

However, the Lehman prohibition on the exercise of federal habeas jurisdiction has

5

been found to govern ‘regardless of whether the child is in the custody of a foster

6

parent or confined in a state institution.’”) (quoting Rigsbee v. Oklahoma Dep’t of

7

Human Servs., 2007 WL 49091, *2 n.12 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 4, 2007) and citing

8

Amerson v. State of Iowa, 59 F.3d 92, 94 (8th Cir. 1995)).

9

Second, the State’s strong interest in domestic relations and issues of

10

child custody precludes federal habeas subject-matter jurisdiction.

See

11

Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983); Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d

12

134, 137 (9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, “federal habeas has never been available to

13

challenge parental rights or child custody.” Lehman, 458 U.S. at 511. Although

14

the scope of federal habeas relief has been expanded somewhat over time, it

15

remains limited to situations in which, as a result of a criminal conviction, a

16

petitioner has suffered substantial restraints that are not shared by the general

17

public. Id. at 510.

18

Finally, to the extent that Petitioner seeks redress for wrongs committed

19

in connection with the state court’s granting of the move-away order, this

20

Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,

21

44 S. Ct. 149 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.

22

Ct. 1303 (1983). Petitioner asserts that while he was in state custody, he was

23

prevented from attending the proceedings pertaining to the move away order, in

24

violation of his constitutional rights. (Pet. at 6.) However, this Court’s review of

25

those alleged violations would amount to improper appellate review of a state-court

26

decision. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Typically,

27

the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter

28

jurisdiction over a proceeding in which a party losing in state court seeks what in
3

1

substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district

2

court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the

3

loser’s federal rights.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “[T]he

4

Rooker-Feldman bar applies even if the complaint alleges that the state court’s

5

action was unconstitutional.”

6

1247651, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2013) (Wistrich, M.J.) (quoting Feldman, 460 U.S.

7

at 486, 103 S. Ct. 1303), R&R adopted, 2013 WL 1247648 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 26,

8

2013) (Fairbank, J.).

Murphy v. Riverside Superior Court, 2013 WL

9

For these reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter

10

jurisdiction and that the purported habeas petition therefore must be

11

dismissed without prejudice. See Ignacio v. Judge s of U.S. Court of Appeals for

12

the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that the district

13

court rightly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction an action that

14

challenged a state superior court’s determination in a domestic-relations case), cited

15

by Murphy, 2013 WL 1247651 at *2; Ismail v. Ford, 2014 WL 1681993, *1 n.1

16

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014) (Valerie Baker Fairbank, J.) (in civil-rights action against

17

adoptive parents of plaintiff’s child, court noted that its earlier order had dismissed

18

many other defendants for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to the Rooker-

19

Feldman doctrine); Goble v. Hutchens, 2012 WL 6623684 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29,

20

2012) (John McDermott, M.J.) (Rooker-Feldman precluded jurisdiction over a

21

purported 28 U.S.C. section 2254 habeas action that appeared to challenge the

22

validity of orders issued by Orange County Superior Court in connection with

23

child-custody and child-support issues), R&R adopted, 2012 WL 6616477 (C.D.

24

Cal. Dec. 16, 2012) (Josephine Staton Tucker, J.); Johnson v. Johnson, 2010 WL

25

1740721, *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010) (“[B]ased on the parties named in this action

26

(i.e., Fred Johnson and Darlene Johnson), and the portions of the petition

27

referencing the enforcement of a marriage subpoena [sic], it appears that petitioner

28

may be raising claims pertaining to a state[-]court family law action. * * * [T]his
4

1

Court does not have jurisdiction of such a claim under the Rooker-Feldman

2

doctrine.”) (citations omitted).

3

ORDER

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judgment consistent with this Order will issue as a separate document as
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a).
This case shall be TERMINATED (JS-6).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

DATED: February 6, 2018
___________________________________

14

VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
Senior United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5