Ghazi El v. New York City's Administration of Child Services
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-03304
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Hiqim Anwar Ghazi El v. New York City's Administration of Child Services, Judge Woods dismissed the petition challenging his daughter’s custody and denied emergency relief.
Hiqim Anwar Ghazi El and his minor daughter, SS. The claims asserted on SS’s behalf were dismissed without prejudice, and the request for preliminary relief was denied.
What happened
Hiqim Anwar Ghazi El filed a petition seeking custody of his minor daughter, SS, who appeared to be in foster care. He said New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services was unlawfully detaining SS and trying to make him give up his claimed Moorish national birthright.
The court ruled that Ghazi El, who was representing himself and had not alleged that he was an attorney, could not bring claims in federal court on SS’s behalf. The court also noted that he was not himself in custody, a requirement for relief under the detention statutes he cited.
Judge Gregory H. Woods dismissed without prejudice the claims brought on SS’s behalf, declined to allow an amended petition, and denied the request for an order requiring the respondents to respond to the request for preliminary relief. The order also stated that the petition was denied for failure to state a claim, that no appeal certificate would issue, and that fee-free appellate status was denied.
The detailed version
- Ghazi El v. New York City's Administration of Child Services · No. 1:21-cv-03304
- Gregory Woods
- Apr. 22, 2021
Background
Hiqim Anwar Ghazi El, appearing without a lawyer (pro se), paid the $5 filing fee and brought a petition under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 on behalf of his minor daughter, SS. He sought an order requiring that SS be brought to federal court. The petition identified as respondents New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services, Alice Nyaboga, Good Shepherd Services, Family Court Magistrate Rosio Martinez, Judge Maria Arias, and attorney Mathew Trezza.
Ghazi El described himself as a “Moorish American national.” He alleged that he had notified the child-services agency that he was SS’s biological father, but that the agency was unfairly detaining SS and attempting to force him to surrender or waive his “Moorish national birthright.” The petition stated that SS appeared to be in foster care. Ghazi El was not a party to the related New York State Family Court matter.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a person representing himself may litigate only his own interests. A nonlawyer generally may not represent a minor child in federal court. Because Ghazi El did not allege facts showing that he was an attorney, the court held that he could not assert claims on SS’s behalf. It therefore dismissed without prejudice any claims he asserted on SS’s behalf.
The court also stated that Ghazi El was not in custody and therefore could not obtain relief under either Section 2241 or Section 2254. Section 2241 and Section 2254 allow a person in custody to challenge the legality of that custody under federal law. The court did not reach the merits of Ghazi El’s allegations about SS’s custody or his claimed national identity.
Other requested relief and disposition
Ghazi El submitted an unsigned order to show cause seeking preliminary injunctive relief, meaning an order issued before final judgment. The court found that his submissions did not show either a likelihood of success or sufficiently serious questions supporting such relief, and it denied the request for an order to show cause.
The court declined to allow Ghazi El to amend the petition because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. In the conclusion, the court stated that the petition filed under Sections 2241 and 2254 was denied for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free appellate status.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.