Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00652/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00652-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD SMITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-0652 GEB EFB P

vs.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA, ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner is a Washington state prisoner without counsel seeking a writ of mandamus

directed to the Yolo County Superior Court. 

He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the

in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. 

Petitioner contends he suffered a criminal conviction in the Yolo County Superior Court

and was denied effective assistance of counsel. He asks this court to order the state superior

court to decide the issues raised by petitioner in the instant petition for writ of mandamus. 

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court. See Demos

v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). The

proper remedy for a state prisoner challenging any aspect of his state custody is to file a federal

habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th

Case 2:09-cv-00652-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Cir. 2004). 

Petitioner has requested that the court appoint counsel. In habeas proceedings, there is

no absolute right to appointment of counsel. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir.

1996). The court may appointment counsel at any stage of the proceedings “if the interests of

justice so require.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A; see also, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254

Cases. The court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment

of counsel. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Petitioner’s April 24, 2009 motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 

Further, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the March 9, 2009 petition for a writ of

mandamus be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to filing a petition for writ of

habeas corpus in a new action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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 Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00652-GEB-EFB Document 10 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2