Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05197/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05197-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States CA>μrt ~f Appeal! Tenth C1rcmt 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EUGENE T. FOUST, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

MARY ANN JOHNSON FOUST, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ) 

SERVICES; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE) 

OF OKLAHOMA; MARGARET ANN JOHNSON, an ) 

alleged deprived child, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 1 G 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-5197 

(D.C. No. 90-C-792-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-5197 Document: 010110212739 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 1 
This is a prose appeal from an order of the district court 

denying habeas corpus relief. 

The facts surrounding this case are essentially as follows: 

Mr. Foust was the stepfather (by virtue of a common-law marriage ) 

of a minor female. Mr. Foust was convicted for "lewd molestation" 

of his stepdaughter and was confined to an Oklahoma Corrections 

Center where he is presently incarcerated. Apparently there was a 

separate jury trial in which the minor child was "adjudged to be 

deprived." This was followed by another action where the Oklahoma 

Courts deprived both Mr. Foust and the minor child's natural 

mother of parental rights and placed the child in the custody of 

the State of Oklahoma Department of Human Services. Mr. Foust 

filed a prose complaint in district court seeking habeas corpus 

relief. Mr. Foust alleged his constitutional rights were violated 

in various ways when his parental rights to his stepdaughter were 

terminated in the Oklahoma Courts and asked for an order restoring 

his parental rights. 

The district court dismissed the habeas corpus petition for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction reasoning that Mr. Foust was 

not a person in custody as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988 ) . 

See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). The district court 

denied a certificate of probable cause for this appeal. 

In his appeal, Mr. Foust attacks the judgment terminating 

parental rights and asserts he was denied counsel for the purposes 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5197 Document: 010110212739 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 2 
of prosecuting an appeal; was denied a record on appeal; was 

denied the opportunity to defend; asserts prosecutorial 

misconduct; and was denied many other rights by the state court. 

He asks us to reverse the district court's decision denying habeas 

corpus relief and remand for a trial. We grant permission for 

Mr. Foust to appeal in forma pauperis and affirm. 

Mr. Foust has selected the wrong remedy. Mr . Faust's 

complaint expressly states it is being maintained pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254. To maintain an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Mr. 

Foust must show he is "'in custody' under the conviction or 

sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed." Maleng, 

490 U.S. at 490-91. This he has not done . Mr . Foust does not 

attack the conviction which placed him in custody, but instead 

attacks the wholly separate state court ruling which deprived him 

of parental rights over his stepdaughter. Even if we apply the 

most liberal construction of Mr. Faust's pleadings imaginable and 

assume he is bringing this action on behalf of his stepdaughter, 

the district court still would not be able to grant relief for a 

variety of reasons including the lack of necessary parties. 

Mr. Faust's original complaint and supporting brief, as well 

as his brief to this court, contain voluminous citations of legal 

authority, most of which are irrelevant to the issues presented by 

this appeal and for that reason warrant no discussion. 

-3-

---- ---- ---- --------

Appellate Case: 92-5197 Document: 010110212739 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 3 
We note this is not the first time Mr . Foust has presented 

this court with these issues. Mr. Foust previously commenced an 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983 and 1985 alleging 

various state actions had deprived him of his civil rights, in 

part relating to essentially the same issues. Mr. Foust was 

denied relief. See Foust v. Chorost, No. 90-5018, Order and 

Judgment, Jan. 15, 1991. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-5197 Document: 010110212739 Date Filed: 04/16/1993 Page: 4