1 After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. SeeFed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata , and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### DEC 19 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

D. JAMES PERROTT MACNEIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE TOM WOODFORD, District Court, Jefferson County Court, Jefferson County, Golden, Colorado, Respondent-Appellee. No. 97-1142 (D.C. No. 97-D-541) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 1

Before BRORBY , EBEL and KELLY , Circuit Judges.
On March 18, 1997, plaintiff-appellant D. James Per rott MacNeil ("MacNeil") filed a motion for habeas corpus pursua nt 18 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking relief from conditions on his visitation rights wit h his children imposed by Judge Tom Woodford ("Judge Woodford") of the Jefferson Co unty, Colorado, District1 The district court issued an order on May 27, 1997, granting leave to MacNeil to

proceed on appeal. - 2 - Court. MacNeil argued that Judge Woodford had depr ived him of his constitutional rights under the First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The United States District Court for the District of Co lorado dismissed MacNeil's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction purs uant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) in an order dated March 28, 1997 . MacNeil now appeals, and we affirm. 1 Because MacNeil pursued this action as a pro se pla intiff, we liberally construe his pleadings to the extent that if we "ca n reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, [the court] should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper lega l authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentenc e construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). Construing the allegations in th e light most favorable to MacNeil, we view his complaint as raising two cause s of action: a petition for habeas corpus and a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (d amages available to plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been vi olated by a person acting under color of state law). However, MacNeil cannot preva il under either theory.- 3 -

First , it is well settled law that federal habeas relief "has never been available to challenge parental rights or child cus tody" determinations by state courts. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Servi ces Agency , 458 U.S. 501, 511 (1982). Under the principles of federalism that provide for separate state and federal courts, federal courts do not have jurisdic tion to consider challenges to state court orders affecting parental rights and ch ild custody issues. See Id. at 516. Thus, MacNeil cannot collaterally attack Judg e Woodford's decision concerning MacNeil's visitation rights, a state cou rt order, by way of a habeas corpus petition in federal court. As a result, the federal district court properly dismissed MacNeil's habeas corpus petition for lackof subject matter jurisdiction. Second , state court judges acting in their judicial capac ity are absolutely immune from liability under section 1983. Mireless v. Wac o , 502 U.S. 9, 11012 (1991). Thus, the district court properly dismissed MacNeil 's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Judge Woodford. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the federal district c ourt's order. The mandate shall issue forthwith. ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge