JENNINGS v. MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                            
                    DISTRICT OF MAINE                                 
KIARA JENNINGS, et al.,       )                                           
                          )                                           
      Petitioners         )                                           
                          )                                           
 v.                       )    2:25-cv-00241-SDN                      
                          )                                           
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF           )                                           
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,    )                                           
                          )                                           
      Respondent          )                                           


KIARA JENNINGS, et al.,       )                                           
                          )                                           
      Petitioners         )                                           
                          )                                           
 v.                       )    2:25-cv-00281-SDN                      
                          )                                           
MICHAEL DUDDY, et al.,        )                                           
                          )                                           
      Respondents         )                                           
  RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW OF COMPLAINT                      
      AND PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS,                       
       MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, AND CORAM NOBIS                         
 In two related cases, Petitioners ask the Court for several writs as well as declaratory 
and injunctive relief  directing the  return of their children and the dismissal  of child 
protective proceedings pending in state court.  (First Petition, 2:25-cv-00241-SDN, ECF 
No. 1; Second Petition, 2:25-cv-00281-SDN, ECF No. 1.)  In addition to their pleadings, 
Petitioners  filed  an  application  to  proceed  without  the  prepayment  of  the  filing  fee, 
(Motion, 2:25-cv-00241-SDN, ECF No. 2), which application the Court granted.  (Order, 
2:25-cv-00241-SDN, ECF No. 4.)  Pursuant to the statute that governs matters filed without 
the prepayment of fees, a preliminary review of Petitioners’ pleadings is appropriate.  28 
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).  The Court also conducts a preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of 
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.1  Upon review, “[i]f it plainly appears from the 

motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is 
not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the 
moving party.”                                                            
As a general rule, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), requires abstention from 
the exercise of jurisdiction when a plaintiff seeks relief in federal court from a pending 

state  criminal  prosecution  or  analogous  civil  enforcement  proceeding.  Sprint 
Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72–73, 78 (2013); Sirva Relocation, LLC v. 
Richie,  794  F.3d  185,  192–93  (1st  Cir.  2015).    Abstention  is  mandatory  absent 
“extraordinary circumstances,” such as: (1) an action “brought in bad faith . . . for the 
purpose of harassment,” (2) “the state forum provides inadequate protection of federal 

rights,” or (3) the challenged “state statute is flagrantly and patently violative of express 
constitutional  prohibitions”  or  there  is  “a  facially  conclusive  claim  of  [federal] 
preemption.”  Sirva Relocation, 794 F.3d at 192, 197.                     



1 Although Petitioners’ motion for habeas corpus relief would proceed pursuant to § 2241 rather than § 
2254 because they are not in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, “the § 2254 rules specifically 
state that they may be applied by the district court to other habeas petitions.”  Bramson v. Winn, 136 F. 
App’x 380, 382 (1st Cir. 2005) (citing Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases).  A preliminary 
review is also supported under 28 U.S.C. § 2243.  Section 2243 provides in pertinent part: “A court, justice 
or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an 
order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the 
application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.”  (emphasis added). 
 The Supreme Court and the First Circuit have concluded that Younger applies to 
child custody actions like the one Petitioners describe.  See Malachowski v. City of Keene, 

787 F.2d 704, 708 (1st Cir. 1986) (discussing Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979)).  
Petitioners have not alleged sufficient facts to permit a plausible finding of extraordinary 
circumstances to overcome the abstention mandated by Younger.  For example, Petitioners 
have not plausibly demonstrated through nonconclusory allegations that the state court has 
refused to permit Petitioners to raise their federal claims in that forum.  See McLeod v. 
Maine Department of Health and Human Services, 229 F.3d 1133, 2000 WL 869512 at *1, 

(1st Cir. 2000) (“Appellant has not alleged facts showing that the state court is somehow 
incapable of adjudicating this matter including the federal issues, nor has she alleged an 
injury that is different than that incidental to every child protection proceeding” where state 
officers act in good faith) (quotation marks and modifications omitted).  Accordingly, I 
recommend the Court dismiss the matters.2                                 

                         NOTICE                                       
      A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate 
 judge’s  report  or  proposed  findings  or  recommended  decisions  entered 

2 In addition, a federal court lacks the authority to issue extraordinary writs, such as a writ of mandamus, 
to direct a state court to issue an order or otherwise to direct state courts or judicial officers in the 
performance of their official duties.  In Re Martinez, 778 Fed. App’x 198, 199 (3rd Cir. 2019); Cross v. 
Thaler, 356 Fed. App’x 724, 725 (5th Cir. 2009); Woods v. Weaver, 13 Fed. App’x 304, 306 (6th Cir. 2001); 
In re Austin, 8 Fed. App’x 253, 254 (4th Cir. 2001); White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1140 (10th Cir. 1998).  
Petitioners also cite several criminal statutes, but Petitioners do not have standing to pursue criminal charges 
against any of the respondents.  United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (“the Executive Branch 
has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”); Linda R.S. v. 
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (private citizens lack a judicially cognizable interest in the criminal 
prosecution of another); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989); Briand v. Lavigne, 223 F. Supp. 
2d 241, 251 (D. Me. 2002).                                                
 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district 
 court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen 
 (14) days of being served with a copy thereof.                       
      Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right 
 to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order. 
                               /s/ John C. Nivison                    
                               U.S. Magistrate Judge                  
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2025.