WONG v. GARLAND, 1:21-cv-02062

Pro se plaintiffs Shushean Wong and David Lee Koplow filed a complaint and IFP applications seeking a writ of habeas corpus, declaratory and injunctive relief, and a preliminary injunction. The defendant is Attorney General Merrick Garland.
Wong alleges a government-orchestrated conspiracy resulting in the removal of her minor child (CW) from her custody and threats to imprison her to prevent her from litigating for CW.
Wong says she repeatedly tried to notify the Attorney General of the alleged conspiracy but was blocked by an OAG mail clerk; she asks the court to compel access to the Attorney General and return CW. Koplow’s connection to the claims is unclear.
The court granted IFP but dismissed the complaint and denied the preliminary injunction for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The court found no factual basis that either plaintiff or CW is “in custody” for habeas purposes, that plaintiffs cannot compel criminal prosecution or an investigation by filing suit, and that child-custody disputes belong in state courts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas relief is available ("in custody" requirement)	Wong seeks habeas to return CW, alleging wrongful removal amounts to custody	No plaintiff (or CW) is "in custody" under §2241; habeas therefore unavailable	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no custody shown
Next‑friend standing to pursue habeas for minor	Wong asserts she is CW’s next friend and can litigate for the child	Next‑friend status not established; factual basis is insufficient	Court declines to recognize next‑friend on present record
Ability to force prosecution or compel AG action	Plaintiffs ask court to require AG investigation/action into alleged conspiracy	Courts cannot direct or control prosecutorial discretion or compel criminal investigations	Such claims dismissed — judiciary will not control AG’s charging decisions
Federal forum for child custody dispute	Plaintiffs seek federal relief to resolve custody/return of CW	Custody questions do not raise federal constitutional/statutory issues here and are for state courts	Dismissed; custody disputes belong in local/state courts

Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (U.S. 1963) (parole and similar restraints can constitute "custody" for habeas).
Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1973) (non‑confinement restraints may qualify as custody for habeas).
Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (courts will not control the Attorney General’s prosecutorial discretion).
Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1988) (no private right to compel criminal prosecution as a member of the public or victim).
Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2012) (same — courts do not order criminal prosecutions at plaintiffs’ behest).
Otero v. U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141 (11th Cir. 1987) (no judicial compulsion of federal investigations).
Jafree v. Barber, 689 F.2d 640 (7th Cir. 1982) (court cannot compel prosecutorial action).
Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (no constitutional right to counsel in certain civil proceedings; deference to state procedures in family matters).
Bennett v. Bennett, 682 F.2d 1039 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (child custody disputes are properly handled in state courts).