Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03164/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-03164-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD WAYNE BEALL, No. CIV S-09-3164-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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

mandamus. Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(c) and no other party has been served or appeared in the action. 

Petitioner is a Nevada state prisoner, currently incarcerated at the Northern

Nevada Correctional Center. In his petition, he is requesting this court order a state court, the

Second Judicial District Court, and a state judicial officer, Judge Steven P. Elliott, to rule upon a

motion he has filed in that court. 

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

Case 2:09-cv-03164-CMK Document 5 Filed 05/04/10 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 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

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). Where the federal court does have

jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of mandamus, such a writ may not issue unless it is to

enforce an established right by compelling the performance of a corresponding non-discretionary

ministerial act. See Finley v. Chandler, 377 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1967). 

Here, Petitioner is not requesting an action of any officer or employee of the

United States or an agency thereof. Instead, Petitioner is requesting the court to compel a state

court to rule upon a motion he has filed. This court has no jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1361. Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioner is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in the

dismissal of this action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. 

See Local Rule 110. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner shall show

cause in writing, within 30 days of the date of this order, why this action should not be dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. 

DATED: April 30, 2010

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-03164-CMK Document 5 Filed 05/04/10 Page 2 of 2