Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01293/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01293-2/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On January 20, 2015, the instant action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed for 

failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and judgment was entered.1 

(ECF Nos. 8, 9.) The Court’s January 20, 2015, order was served via United States mail at Plaintiff’s 

address of record. 

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to California Code of 

Civil Procedure section 1085. (ECF No. 10.) In the writ of mandate, Plaintiff alleges various forms of 

misconduct by prison officials, including physical harm, retaliation, involuntary administration of 

illegal drugs, and denial of access to the court. As relief Plaintiff requests transportation to the Court 

to prove his case. 

///

 

1

Plaintiff consented to United States magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 6.) 

AARON WALLACE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD SPECTER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01293-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

[ECF No. 10]

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 11 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 2
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

“A traditional or ordinary writ of mandate under [§ 1085] is a method for compelling a public 

entity to perform a legal and usually ministerial duty.” City of Scotts Valley v. Cnty of Santa Cruz, 

201 Cal.App.4th 1, 23 (2011) (internal quotations omitted). “A ‘ministerial duty’ is one generally 

imposed upon a person in public office who, by virtue of their position, is obligated ‘to perform in a 

prescribed manner required by law when a given state of facts exists.’” Flores v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. 

and Rehab., 224 Cal.App.4th 199, 205 (2014) (citations omitted). “Thus, ordinary mandate is used to 

review adjudicatory actions or decisions when the agency was not required to hold an evidentiary 

hearing.” Bunnett v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.App.4th 843, 848 (1995). 

Plaintiff is advised that federal district courts lack jurisdiction over a claim for a writ of 

mandate under California Civil Procedure Code section 1085. See Hill v. County of Sacramento, 466 

Fed.Appx. 577, 579 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 1085 authorizes only state courts to issue 

writs of mandate.”); see also Mory v. City of Chula Vista, No. 10-cv-00252 JLS (WVG), 2011 WL 

777914, *2 (Mar. 1, 2011). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to challenge improper actions taken by prison 

officials, his relief is by way of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in which he may seek injunctive relief as a form of 

relief. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate pursuant to California Civil 

Procedure Code section 1085 is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01293-SAB Document 11 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2