finding that a “civil judgment requiring [plaintiff] to pay child support does not . . . constitute ‘custody’” for purposes of habeas relief
How later courts described this case
- finding that a “civil judgment requiring [plaintiff] to pay child support does not . . . constitute ‘custody’” for purposes of habeas relief
- finding that a judge’s initiation of criminal proceedings against fathers with overdue child support payments constituted nonjudicial acts
- holding that whether a habeas corpus petitioner is “in custody” for habeas purposes is determined at the time the complaint is filed
- holding that father incarcerated for failure to pay child support was entitled to counsel during civil contempt proceeding
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GEORGE CLIFTON EDWARDS, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in Judge Contie’s opinion except for Section IV thereof. As to Section IV, I cannot agree that federal abstention is appropriate in this ease. As the majority opinion recognizes, the Supreme Court has recently held that the doctrine of judicial immunity does not bar injunctive relief. Pulliam v. Allen, —U.S. —, 104 S.Ct. 1970 , 80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984).
Appellant has, in my view, also alleged “extraordinary circumstances” which, if established at hearing, would involve federal constitutional violations. Among these are failure of the Tennessee judge to advise him of his right to counsel before a hearing which has resulted and could result in his further incarceration. Unlike the plaintiff in Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1980), this appellant did seek the only relief realistically available to him in state appellate court, which denied his claim.
The federal court exists to protect individual citizens’ rights under the federal constitution and laws as this court held in a case involving juvenile detention, Hanna v. Toner, 630 F.2d 442 (6th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 1365 , 67 L.Ed.2d 346 (1981).
The federal courts were created to vindicate the constitution and laws of the United States, Bivens v. Six Unknown *274 Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 , 66 S.Ct. 773, 777 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163, 177 , 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). The rule, of course, is that their' doors are open to complaints of violation of such laws. Exceptions to that rule are few and narrowly drawn. Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813 , 96 S.Ct. 1236, 1244 , 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976); County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188-89 , 79 S.Ct. 1060, 1062-1063 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959).