Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No. 1:07-cv-01031-OWW-NEW (TAG)

Petitioner,

ORDER TO ADOPT FINDINGS AND 

v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS

COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. 3)

COUNTY OF KINGS,

Respondent,

D. RUIZ,

Real Party In Interest,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

On July 17, 2007, Petitioner Raymond Alford Bradford (“Bradford”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a petition in this Court requesting that it issue a mandate directing a Kings

County Superior Court judge to enter a default judgment against Lieutenant D. Ruiz in a state civil

action that Bradford brought against Lieutenant Ruiz. (Doc. 1). On August 3, 2007, the Magistrate

Judge screened Bradford’s petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and issued findings and

recommendations, which recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 3). The

Magistrate Judge found that this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus that would

interfere with a state court judge’s performance of his duties. (Id.). The August 3, 2007, findings

and recommendations was served on Bradford and contained notice that any objections were to be

filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of service. 

On August 10, 2007, Bradford filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

(Doc. 4). In his objections, Bradford contended that, pursuant to sections 1085, 1086, and 1087 of

Case 1:07-cv-01031-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 08/21/07 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

the California Code of Civil Procedure, this Court erred in failing to issue the requested writ of

mandamus. (Id.). The referenced California Code, however, applies to the issuance of writs by

higher state courts to inferior state courts and neither references, nor has any relevance to, this

Court’s jurisdiction. See Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 & Cal. Law Revision Com. com., 

§§ 1086, 1087. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations filed

on August 3, 2007, to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 3), filed August 3, 2007, are ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01031-OWW -LJO Document 5 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 2