Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00346-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00346-JDP

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION

RESPONSE DUE IN THIRTY DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION 

FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

ECF No. 6

Petitioner Leroy Gomez, a state pretrial detainee without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.1 ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks an order directing the Superior 

Court of Kern County to review his claim of vindictive prosecution against the prosecutor at his 

preliminary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 1-2.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their respective 

jurisdictions.” This court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to issue writs of 

mandamus. That jurisdiction is limited, however, to writs of mandamus to “compel an officer or 

 

1 Although petitioner does not identify the federal statute under which he seeks relief, we will 

construe his filing as a petition for a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1651, in light of the relief he seeks.

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3
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

2

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. 

Absent certain rare exceptions, a federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding 

action by a state or its agencies. See, e.g., Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Wash., 

925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining that “to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a 

writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some action, the petitions are 

frivolous as a matter of law”). Here, the petitioner seeks to compel a trial judge of a California 

state court to review his vindictive prosecution claim. Because petitioner does not seek an order

compelling action on the part of the United States or any federal agency, this court lacks

jurisdiction over his petition. Therefore, we will order petitioner to show cause why his petition 

should not be dismissed.

Petitioner also seeks the appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). ECF No. 

6. Petitioner has no Sixth Amendment right to counsel in this civil proceeding. See Martinez v. 

Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 159-60 (2000) (“The Sixth Amendment identifies the basic rights 

that the accused shall enjoy in ‘all criminal prosecutions’[; t]hey are presented strictly as rights 

that are available in preparation for trial and at the trial itself.”). Although the court lacks the 

authority to require an attorney to represent petitioner, see Mallard v. U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989), the court may request the voluntary 

assistance of counsel, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent 

any person unable to afford counsel.”). However, without a means to compensate counsel, the 

court will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 

circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 

[and] the ability of the [petitioner] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 

legal issues involved.” Rand v. Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted).

The court cannot conclude that exceptional circumstances requiring the appointment of 

counsel are present here. The allegations in the petition are not exceptionally complicated and it 

is not apparent that petitioner is unable to articulate his claims adequately. Further, petitioner has 

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim. Therefore, we deny 

petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel.

Order

Within thirty days of the date of service of this order, petitioner is ordered to show cause 

why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Petitioner’s request 

for the appointment of counsel is denied. ECF No. 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 8 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3