Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00276-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLY DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. PHUI, ET. AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-CV-00276-HBK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MISCELLANEOUS MOTION 

(Doc. No. 30)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s letter addressed to the Court. (Doc. No. 30). The 

Federal Rules dictate the appropriate type of pleadings, including how motions are to be filed 

with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b). Letters addressed to the court do not qualify as a motion. 

Indeed, this Court’s Local Rules provide that “[n]o petition or motion shall be addressed to an 

individual Judge or Magistrate Judge.” Local Rule 190(c). In the future, Plaintiff is warned that 

any future letter addressed to the Court will be returned without filing. 

Plaintiff states he is undergoing medical procedures at the hospital in San Diego and 

requests that the Court direct correctional officials not to transfer him to a different prison. (See 

generally Doc. No. 30). Liberally construed, the Court construes the motion as a motion for 

mandamus relief. Defendants filed a response to the pleading and in opposition to Plaintiff’s 

motion for a preliminary injunction on November 23, 2021. (Doc. No. 34). Defendants point out 

that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is not named as a 

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 45 Filed 02/14/22 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

27

28

2

defendant in this action. (Id.).

The federal mandamus status provides: “[t]he 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 an extraordinary remedy, however. It is available to compel a federal officer 

to perform a duty only 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; and (3) no other adequate remedy is 

available. See Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986). 

Here, no federal officials are involved, only state officials. Federal mandamus relief is not 

available for state correctional officials. Further, this Court cannot advise state correctional 

officials how to manage its facilities, including the transfer of inmates. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 

U.S. 460, 467 (1983) (correctional officials have broad discretionary authority in the 

administration of a prison) (citing Wolf v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974)). The decision 

whether to transfer an inmate to a different prison is a matter within the discretion of correctional 

officials. See generally Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976). Confined individuals do not

have a right remain at any particular correctional institution. Id. As pointed out by Defendants, 

CDCR is not named as a party to this case and there is no evidence that Plaintiff is being 

transferred. While it certainly makes logical sense for Plaintiff to remain confined closest to 

where he is receiving medical treatment, this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff 

the relief he requests. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion (Doc No. 30) is DENIED.

Dated: February 14, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00276-KES-HBK Document 45 Filed 02/14/22 Page 2 of 2