Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02210/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02210-1/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

PATRICK OTIS NELSON, No. CIV S-07-2210-MCE-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

KEIRAN D.C. MANJARREZ, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of

mandamus against Keirand D.C. Manjarrez and Carolyn Joyce Fershtman, who plaintiff

identifies as attorneys who represented him either at trial or on appeal. Plaintiff is attempting to

obtain copies of his legal documents from these two attorneys. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), all federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their

respective jurisdictions. . .” In addition, the district 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 employee of the United States or any agency thereof to

perform a duty. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). It is also well-established that, with

very few exceptions specifically outlined by Congress, the federal court cannot issue a writ of

Case 2:07-cv-02210-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 03/27/08 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

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). 

Here, petitioner is not requesting any action on behalf of any officer or employee

of the United States or an agency thereof. Plaintiff is requesting the court to compel two private

individuals, who are not employees or officers of the United States, to provide plaintiff copies of

legal documents. The court has no jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that petitioner’s petition for

issuance of a writ of mandate be denied and this action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction..

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 20 days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court. The 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. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 27, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02210-MCE -CMK Document 6 Filed 03/27/08 Page 2 of 2