Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00649/USCOURTS-cand-3_20-cv-00649-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE LEE BRIDGEMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 20-cv-00649-JD 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 to obtain custody of her minor child. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

In November 2018, the minor at issue, TSB, was removed from the home of his 

grandmother and appears to have been placed with a foster parent. Petition at 7-8. Petitioner 

argues that the foster parent is unfit, and the social worker assigned to the case raises his voice and 

does not have the patience for social work. Id. at 11. For relief, petitioner seeks TSB to be 

released from the custody of the foster parent. Id. at 14. 

DISCUSSION

The Court first notes that to challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the 

fact or length of one’s confinement the party must first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on 

direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with 

a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to raise in federal court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). It does not appear that 

this petition has been exhausted.

Case 3:20-cv-00649-JD Document 5 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Even if the petition is exhausted, it is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Federal habeas 

corpus has never been available to challenge parental rights or child custody. See Lehman v. 

Lycoming County Children’s Services, 458 U.S. 502, 511 (1982). A federal habeas petition 

challenging a state’s child-custody determination simply seeks to relitigate the petitioner’s interest 

in his or her own parental rights. See id. A federal court has no jurisdiction to relitigate these 

interests; federal courts are not courts of appeal from state decisions. See D.C. Ct. App. v. 

Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486 (1983). To extend the federal writ to challenges to state childcustody decisions based on alleged constitutional defects collateral to the actual custody decision 

would be an unprecedented expansion of the jurisdiction of the federal courts. See Lehman, 458 

U.S. at 512.

In addition, children placed in foster homes are not in the “custody” of the state for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254, see Lehman at 510, nor is the “custody” of foster or adoptive 

parents the type of custody that traditionally has been challenged through federal habeas, see id. at 

511. See also Donnelly v. Donnelly, 515 F.2d 129, 130 (1st Cir. 1975) (habeas corpus not 

intended to encompass kind of parental custody of children involving issues of visitation), cert. 

denied, 423 U.S. 998 (1975). 

The Court concludes that Lehman governs this case. “Family relations are a traditional 

area of state concern” and implicate an important state interest. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435 

(1979).

This is a particularly appropriate admonition in the field of domestic 

relations, over which federal courts have no general jurisdiction, see 

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 697–701, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 

119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992), and in which the state courts have a 

special expertise and experience. See Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 

U.S. 572, 581, 99 S.Ct. 802, 59 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979).

H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). For these reasons, the Supreme Court has long 

opined that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases. See Ex Parte 

Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband 

and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United 

States. As to the right to the control and possession of this child, as it is contested by its father and 

Case 3:20-cv-00649-JD Document 5 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

its grandfather, it is one in regard to which neither the congress of the United States, nor any 

authority of the United States, has any special jurisdiction.”); see also Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 

F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (since Burrus, “the federal courts have uniformly held that they 

should not adjudicate cases involving domestic relations, including ‘the custody of minors,’” and 

“the whole subject of domestic relations and particularly child custody problems is generally 

considered a state law matter”). As a matter of federalism and comity, it is appropriate to apply 

Lehman to this case and conclude that federal habeas jurisdiction is lacking, particularly given 

petitioner’s apparent failure to provide the state high court an opportunity to review the claims.

Petitioner may try to amend the petition in a manner consistent with this order. Petitioner 

is advised to follow the appropriate county or state procedures to pursue custody.

CONCLUSION

1. If petitioner chooses to amend, the amended petition must be filed by March 30, 

2020. Failure to file an amended petition within the designated time may result in the dismissal of 

this action.

2. Petitioner must keep the Court informed of any change of address and must comply 

with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this 

action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. 

Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th Cir. 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2020

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:20-cv-00649-JD Document 5 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE LEE BRIDGEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 20-cv-00649-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on February 28, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by 

placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 

depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery 

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Stephanie Lee Bridgeman

2727 Horizon Court

Stockton, CA 95206 

Dated: February 28, 2020

Susan Y. Soong

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:20-cv-00649-JD Document 5 Filed 02/28/20 Page 4 of 4