Freddy Dawoud v. Jessica Kronstadt

I. DISCUSSION

A. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. As described above, Dawoud describes the Pleading as a habeas petition and expressly invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 1 at 9.) However, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Dawoud’s children are not “in custody.” “The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis in original). The “in custody” requirement is jurisdictional, and “requir[es] that the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Id. at 490–91. Here, Dawoud appears to challenge a custody determination made by a California Superior Court Judge. Plaintiff’s children are not “in custody” as a result of a conviction or sentence.

The status of Dawoud’s children does not rise to the level of “custody” required by the…