Opinion
1:12-cv-00088-JLT HC
01-25-2012
KEITH THOMAS, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, et al., Respondents.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO ASSIGN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO CASE
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
On January 11, 2012, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. Petitioner alleges that the California Supreme Court, on at least seven different occasions, has denied Petitioner's petitions for review or petitions for writ of mandamus, without providing reasons for said denials. Petitioner appears to allege that Petitioner was seeking an order from the California Supreme Court requiring a lower court find that Petitioner was unable to meet a particular court deadline. (Doc. 1, p. 2). As Respondents, Petitioner has named the California Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of California, the California Attorney General, and Warden Anthony Hedgpeth.
The federal mandamus statute provides: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty if (1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer "is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt," Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v. Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir.1970)); and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers' Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). Mandamus relief is not available in this case because the named Respondents are not officers, employees, or agencies of the United States.
ORDER
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District Judge to this case.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of mandamus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation." Replies to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge's ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE