United States v. 2020-01-13 | 19-15723 | ARLENA WILLES V. ARIZONA DEPT. OF CHILD SAFETY | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARLENA MINERVA WILLES, on behalf
of J.D.Z. in the custody of the Child Safety
Services,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD
SAFETY, named as Department of Child
Services (Safety) in original Petition;
MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE
COURT, named as Juvinille Court in
original Petition,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 19-15723

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00068-JJT-JFM

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Arlena Minerva Willes appeals pro se from the district court’s order

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15723
dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Nettles v. Grounds,
830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and we affirm.
Willes contends that the district court erred by dismissing her section 2254
petition, which challenged proceedings in Arizona state court regarding the
custody of her minor son. The district court correctly determined that section 2254
does not confer federal habeas jurisdiction over challenges to state child custody
proceedings. See Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S.
502, 515-16 (1982). Willes’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that
respondents caused severe emotional distress is not properly before the court, see
Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994), and is not
cognizable in habeas, see Nettles, 830 F.3d at 929-35 (claims fall outside “the core
of habeas corpus” if success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier
release from confinement).
Appellant’s motion to supplement the record is granted. The Clerk is
directed to maintain the documents filed at Docket Entry No. 10 under seal.
Appellant’s motion to submit a supplemental brief is granted.
AFFIRMED.