Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02173/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02173-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

[Case Number]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALEEM EL-AMIN

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY PELOSI

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv2173-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING 

COMPLAINT AND CHARGING 

PLAINTIFF WITH A STRIKE

Plaintiff Saleem El-Amin filed a petition for writ of mandamus against 

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. He also filed a motion 

to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). He asks that the Court order her to regulate 

federal courts so that his 2014 armed robbery conviction in the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia on November 14, 2014 will ultimately be set aside. His IFP 

motion shows he is confined at the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas.

A review of caselaw shows that El-Amin also unsuccessfully brought a 

habeas petition attacking his conviction. See El-Amin v. English, ___ Fed. Appx. 

___, 2019 WL 4879402 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2019) (denying certificate of appealability 

and dismissing appeal). It is clear El-Amin is the same person as the 

petitioner/appellant in the Tenth Circuit case, because the details and dates of their 

Case 3:19-cv-02173-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 11/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

[Case Number]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

convictions are the same, and his inmate number is the same. His IFP motion also 

admits the Tenth Circuit charged him with a strike.

Because El-Amin is a prisoner seeking redress from a government officer, 

the Court is required to screen his complaint, and to dismiss it to the extent it is 

frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court would 

must also screen the complaints of plaintiffs proceeding IFP. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B).

The Court lacks any power to compel Congress to legislate. See generally 

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (discussing political question doctrine). 

Furthermore, to the extent El-Amin had any Constitutional claims as he now 

argues, he would not need the benefit of any new laws or regulations, because 

existing Constitutional and federal law provide for such claims. The amendment 

of such laws, if needed, is within the prerogative of Congress. Hodel v. Va. Surface. 

Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 283 (1981) (“[T]he effectiveness of 

existing laws in dealing with a problem identified by Congress is ordinarily a matter 

committed to legislative judgment.”) El-Amin’s complaint appears to be a response 

to procedural rulings in the habeas case, which he contends deprived him of the 

right to bring his claims. In fact, as he knows, he did bring claims, and they were 

considered and rejected. In other words, the legislation El-Amin is asking the Court 

to order is not necessary because he was not deprived of any right to bring claims.

Even if he believes other courts’ decisions are wrong, he cannot continue to 

relitigate the validity of his conviction by framing it differently and filing it in different 

courts. The rapidity with which El-Amin is filing related cases, and the fact that he 

chose to file it in this District, which has no connection at all to his claims, bespeak 

a mischievous intent.

El-Amin’s frivolous claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his 

motion to proceed IFP is DENIED AS MOOT.

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-02173-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 11/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

[Case Number]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In his IFP motion, El-Amin admits that in a separate case, El-Amin v. Office 

for Access to Administration of Justice, 2019 WL 4194057, slip op. at *2 (D. Kan., 

Sept. 4, 2019), he was charged with a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Similarly in 

this case, El-Amin’s complaint lacks even an arguable basis for mandamus relief. 

The Court concludes that this matter also counts as a strike. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2019

Honorable Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02173-LAB-BLM Document 5 Filed 11/20/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3