Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06028/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06028-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

Uoitcd States Coun of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

NOV 1 3 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) 

OF CAROL EVE GREGG, a minor child, ) 

by and through her Father, Carroll ) 

Evan Gregg, and Billy Ray Eaves and ) 

Brenda Gayle Eaves, husband and wife) 

and designated foster parents, next ) 

friends of said minor child; BILLY ) 

RAE EAVES; BRENDA GAYLE EAVES, ) 

husband and wife, joint petitioners ) 

for writ of habeas corpus, ) 

Plaintiffs-Appellants 

and 

CARROLL EVAN GREGG, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SID A. BROWN, Associate District 

Judge; PHIL WATSON, Director, Dept. 

of Human Services; ROBERT H. MACY, 

District Attorney, Oklahoma County, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER ARD JUDGNEN'r* 

No. 90-6028 

(W.D. Okla. 

No. CIV-89-2069-W) 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6028 Document: 010110047902 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 1 
•-: .. :: .. :• 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the district court's denial of 

appellant's motion under 28 u.s.c. S2254. The district court 

found that the appellant was not "in custody" for purposes of 

§ 2254. We affirm. 

Section 2254 states that "a district court shall entertain an 

application for a writ .of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 

custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on the ground 

that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws 

... of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §2254. Section 2254 

habeas relief does not apply to child custody matters. See 

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services, 458 U.S. 502, 

. (1982); Anderson v. State of Colorado, 793 F.2d 262, (10th Cir. 

1986). 

As the district court correctly noted, "[t]his is not an 

instance where the minor petitioner is imprisoned under the aegis 

of the state and thus, truly engaged in a struggle for liberty." 

Dist. Ct. Order at 4-5. Accordingly, we hold that section 2254 

affords no relief to the petitioners in this action. We therefore 

AFFIRM. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6028 Document: 010110047902 Date Filed: 11/13/1990 Page: 2