1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. 5:25-cv-00051-VBF (MBK) 13 LOTTE KASSIES,

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

14 Petitioner,

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 v. SHOULD NOT RECOMMEND

THAT THIS ACTION BE

16 CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES DISMISSED

OF SAN BERNARDINO,

17 Respondent. 18 19 20 SUMMARY OF ORDER 21 On January 8, 2025, Lotte Kassies filed an Application for Expedited 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). (Dkt. 1.) 23 Kassies named herself and Chad Pressman, her husband and the father of 24 her children, as Petitioners. (Id. at 1.) Kassies alleges numerous 25 constitutional and statutory violations that allegedly occurred during 26 California state proceedings that resulted in the termination of the 27 Petitioners’ parental custodial rights to two children, who were placed in 28 the protective custody of the named Respondent, Child and Family Services 1 of San Bernardino (“CFS”). Kassies also alleges that the Petitioners’ 2 constitutional rights were violated during criminal actions against them 3 that are still pending in a California state superior court. Kassies 4 requested that the Court issue “an Expedited Writ of Habeas Corpus 5 directing Respondents to produce Petitioner before the Court for a hearing, 6 if necessary,” vacate the charges (of child endangerment) against Kassies 7 and her husband, order the immediate release of the children from CFS 8 custody and return them to Kassies, grant a new trial “free of procedural 9 and constitutional defects,” or dismiss the charges entirely. (Id. at 1.) 10 On March 3, 2025, Kassies filed an Amended Application for 11 Expedited Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Amended 12 Petition”). (Dkt. 5.) She named only herself as the petitioner in this filing. 13 (Id. at 1.) The allegations in the Amended Petition are limited to 14 “infractions under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 15 Amendments to the United States Constitution,” violations under 42 16 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), and 17 violations of the California Constitution and state law that occurred during 18 the process of removal of Kassies’ children from her home. (Id. at 1.) 19 Kassies requests that this Court issue “an Expedited Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus directing Respondents to produce Petitioner before the Court for a 21 hearing, if necessary,” vacate the state court orders that led to the removal 22 of her children, and order the immediate return of her children to her 23 custody. (Id.) 24 Neither the Petition nor the Amended Petition alleges that Kassies is 25 in custody based on a state court judgment, incarcerated as a pretrial 26 detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose judgment of 27 conviction has been reversed on appeal. 28 1 For the reasons discussed below, it appears from the Petition and 2 Amended Petition that the Magistrate Judge should recommend to the 3 District Judge that the Court summarily dismiss this action without 4 prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Kassies’ inability 5 to represent her husband in this matter. Accordingly, Petitioner is ordered 6 to show cause why the Magistrate Judge should not make that 7 recommendation. 8 LEGAL STANDARD 9 If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 10 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 11 habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 12 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily 13 dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 14 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to 15 district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the 16 petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 17 DISCUSSION 18 1. The Court is Without Subject Matter Jurisdiction 19 “Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to 20 examine their own jurisdiction, and a federal court may not entertain an 21 action over which it has no jurisdiction.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 22 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and 23 citation omitted). 24 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the Petition 25 or the Amended Petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal court “shall 26 entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus ... only on the ground 27 that [the applicant] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or the laws 28 1 or treaties of the United States.” Because Kassies has not been convicted of 2 any crime, there is no state court judgment over which the Court would 3 have authority to grant relief under Section 2254. See McNeely v. Blanas, 4 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 Even had Kassies filed her petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this 6 Court’s jurisdiction would still be lacking. A Section 2241 petition may be 7 brought by a state prisoner who is not held pursuant to a state court 8 judgment, such as a pretrial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a 9 prisoner whose judgment of conviction has been reversed on appeal. See 10 McNeely, 336 F.3d at 824 n.1 (pretrial detainee); White v. Lambert, 370 11 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing “awaiting extradition” and pretrial 12 detention as examples), overruled in part on other grounds, Hayward v. 13 Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Watts v. Jaime, No. 14 CV 21-7281-MCS (AGR), 2022 WL 3648637, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 11, 2022) 15 (“Because Petitioner is not a federal prisoner, and is not incarcerated as a 16 pretrial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose 17 judgment of conviction has been reversed on appeal, he may not bring a § 18 2241 petition.”), Report and Recommendation Adopted at 2022 WL 3647259 19 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2022). Kassies has not alleged any of the 20 aforementioned circumstances that could confer the Court subject matter 21 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 22 Here, the Petition and Amended Petition allege that CFS has 23 illegally taken two children from Petitioner, effectively depriving her of her 24 constitutional rights. To the extent that Petitioner alleges a habeas claim 25 based on her children’s placement with CFS or in foster care, the status of 26 the children does not rise to the level of “custody” required by habeas 27 statutes. See Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, 458 28 1 U.S. 502, 512-16 (1982) (“extending the federal writ to challenges to state 2 child-custody decisions—challenges based on alleged constitutional defects 3 collateral to the actual custody decision—would be an unprecedented 4 expansion of the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts”); see also Bell v. 5 Department of Social and Health Services, 382 Fed. Appx. 669, 670 (9th 6 Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to 7 adjudicate habeas petitioner’s challenge to constitutionality of state’s 8 termination of his parental rights and placement of his children in foster 9 facilities) (citing Lehman); Cucalon v. Rice, 317 Fed. Appx. 602, 603 (9th 10 Cir. 2008) (“state court judgments concerning child custody matters are 11 beyond the purview of habeas corpus.”) (citing Lehman); see also Dawoud v. 12 Kronstadt, No. 5:23-cv-2559-SSS-AJR, 2023 WL 8850064, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 13 Dec. 21, 2023) (collecting cases holding that petitioners cannot invoke 14 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction to challenge state parental rights or 15 custody proceedings). 16 Petitioner has not demonstrated that she or her children are “in 17 custody” that could give rise to a habeas claim. Therefore, the Court lacks 18 subject matter jurisdiction over this habeas action. To the extent that 19 Petitioner seeks to challenge the removal of her children and/or the process 20 that led to the removal of her children, any such claims may be raised in a 21 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 22 2. Kassies Cannot Represent her Husband in Court 23 The Petition names Kassies and her husband as Petitioners, but a 24 pro se litigant can represent only herself in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 25 (“In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their 26 own cases personally or by counsel ....”); see C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United 27 States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may 28 1 appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to 2 him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than 3 himself.”) (citation omitted). Nor has Kassies established that she should 4 be permitted to bring this lawsuit as a “next friend” on behalf of Presman. 5 See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163-64 (1990) (holding that “a 6 ‘next friend’ must provide an adequate explanation—such as 7 inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability—why the real 8 party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action”); 9 Dennis ex rel. Butko v. Budge, 378 F.3d 880, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2004) (same). 10 Accordingly, even if Pressman could invoke habeas jurisdiction due to his 11 incarceration by California authorities, Petitioners fail to establish that 12 Kassies may bring a habeas action on his behalf. 13 DISPOSITION 14 For the foregoing reasons, Kassies is ORDERED to show cause why 15 the Magistrate Judge should not recommend to the District Judge that this 16 case be summarily dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and her 17 inability to represent her husband in this matter. On or before April 24, 18 2025, Kassies shall file a response to this Order. If Kassies fails to timely 19 respond to this Order, the action may be dismissed for failure to obey court 20 orders and/or failure to prosecute. 21 If Kassies no longer wishes to pursue this action, she may voluntarily 22 dismiss the action by filing a Notice of Dismissal in accordance with 23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). A form Notice of Dismissal is 24 attached for convenience. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 1 | Dated: 3/27/2025 LA fp — 2 HON. MICHAEL & KAUFMAN 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28