Marcum v. Olmstead County Health, Housing and Human Services

Background

Bethany Dionne Marcum filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of herself, her daughter K.W., and K.W.’s deceased father. The petition sought to restore Marcum’s parental rights over K.W., which had been terminated in state court proceedings initiated by Olmsted County Health, Housing, and Human Services. Marcum also sought money damages from Olmsted County.

Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty recommended dismissal. The recommendation gave three reasons: habeas relief was unavailable for challenging state guardianship proceedings; the federal court lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the state court proceedings concerning termination of parental rights; and, even if the petition were treated as a civil-rights complaint, Marcum had not alleged enough facts for a municipal-liability claim against Olmsted County. Marcum objected and filed two motions to appoint counsel.

Court’s analysis

The district court reviewed the portions of the recommendation to which Marcum objected without deference and reviewed the unobjected portions for clear error. Because Marcum represented herself, the court read her objections liberally.

The court explained that federal habeas relief is limited to people held in custody in violation of federal law. Marcum was not in custody or detained by a government entity, so her own claim was not available through habeas. The court also held that K.W.’s state guardianship could not be challenged through a federal habeas petition because federal habeas relief is not available to challenge parental rights or child custody.

The court found no clear error in the recommendation’s conclusion that the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review or invalidate the state court’s termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. The court further held that Marcum’s allegations could not plausibly establish municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, because she alleged only one supposed instance of wrongdoing rather than a county policy or practice of unconstitutional conduct.

Disposition

The court overruled Marcum’s objection and accepted the July 10, 2024 Report and Recommendation. It dismissed Marcum’s petition without prejudice under Rule 4 of the rules governing § 2254 cases in federal district courts. It denied as moot Marcum’s August 27 and August 29, 2024 motions to appoint counsel. The order directed that judgment be entered.