Akins v. State of Nebraska

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is dismissed without prejudice. The 7 MOTION to Stay District Court Order and Stay Suspension is denied as moot. The court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with this order. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SAMAR AKINS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:14CV3216

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Petitioner Samar Akins (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(Filing No. 1) in this court on November 4, 2014. His grounds for relief are (1) a state
trial judge demonstrated bias toward him when she awarded sole custody of his children
to their mother, (2) the judge violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause when
she awarded sole custody of his children to their mother, and (3) the judge’s custody and
child support orders were “erroneous.” (Filing No. 1 at CM/ECF pp. 5-10.)
Petitioner seeks orders reversing the trial judge’s decisions in the state-court
custody proceedings. The court cannot grant such relief in a habeas corpus action.
Neither Petitioner nor his children are in the custody of the State of Nebraska in violation
of federal law. Indeed, Plaintiff merely seeks to relitigate, through habeas corpus, the
state district court’s custody and child support orders. Federal habeas corpus statutes do
not confer federal court jurisdiction over challenges to state-court child custody
proceedings. See Lehman v. Lycoming Cnty. Children’s Services Agency, 458 U.S. 502,
515-16 (1982); Amerson v. State of Iowa, Dep’t of Human Servs., 59 F.3d 92 (8th Cir.
1995) (affirming the district court’s determination that no habeas jurisdiction exists to
collaterally attack a state court child custody determination).
Even if the court were to construe the petition as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction to hear an action that, in essence, seeks
to reverse a state court’s child custody determination because the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from exercising appellate review of state court
judgments. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416 (1923); District of Columbia
Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983).

IT IS ORDERED that:
1.
prejudice.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Filing No. 1) is dismissed without

2.
The Motion to Stay District Court Order and Stay Suspension (Filing No.
7) is denied as moot.
3.

The court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with this order.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts
no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs
the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2