Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:19-cv-29
04-15-2020
CHRISTOPHER ALLEN LARKIN HILL, Petitioner, v. O. BRENT GREEN; and CAMDEN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondents.
ORDER
After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the Court concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 7. Petitioner Christopher Hill ("Hill") filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation. Dkt. No. 8.
Hill submitted a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition contesting domestic relations proceedings in the Camden County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court decline to address the relative merits of Hill's Petition under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), as this Court should not interfere with ongoing domestic relations proceedings in a state court. Dkt. No. 7. In the alternative, the Magistrate Judge noted this Court should decline to entertain the relative merits of Hill's Petition if the domestic relations proceedings were resolved. Id. at pp. 4-5 n.3 (citing Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and Dist. of Columbia Ct. of App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)).
In his Objections, Hill contends the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not applicable to habeas corpus petitions. Dkt. No. 8, pp. 1-2. In addition, Hill states Younger abstention does not apply in his case. Id. at pp. 2-8.
Contrary to his objections, Younger abstention and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine are appropriate bases to decline to exercise jurisdiction in habeas corpus actions challenging domestic relations proceedings. See Thomas on behalf of Thomas v. DiSanto, Case No. 5:17cv7, 2017 WL 2728205 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2017), adopted by 2017 WL 3084101 (S.D. Ga. July 19, 2017). Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has expressly approved. Thomas v. DiSanto, 762 F. App'x 770 (11th Cir. 2019). What is more, despite Hill's conclusory argument to the contrary, he has not shown that the policies favoring abstention under Younger do not apply in this case. Dkt. No. 7, pp. 5-6.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Hill's Objections and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court. Thus, the Court DISMISSES Hill's § 2254 Petition, DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal, and DENIES Hill leave to appeal in forma pauperis and a Certificate of Appealability.
SO ORDERED, this 15 day of April, 2020.
/s/_________
HON. LISA GODBEY WOOD, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA