Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00496/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00496-1/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION CENTER, and 

SEAVON PIERCE,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, C.D.C.R. Director of 

Corrections; ROBERT A. BARTON,

Inspector General; FEDERAL JUDICAL 

COMMISSION; and CALIFORNIA 

PRISON OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,

Respondents.

No. 1:16-cv-00496-LJO-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE 

PETITION TO COMPEL FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION AND FAILURE 

TO ALLEGE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM

Petitioner Seavon Pierce (“Pierce”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition to 

compel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

1

 Pierce alleges that the California Department of 

Corrections (“CDCR”) is illegally confiscating Pierce’s mail and depriving him and Petitioners

San Francisco Chronicle and Public Corruption Center of freedom of speech and communication 

between themselves in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In particular, 

Pierce alleges that Respondents, Jeffrey Beard, Director of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); Robert A. Barton, Inspector General; Federal Judicial 

Commission; and California Prison Oversight Commission, are precluding communication 

 

1

Pierce names the San Francisco Chronicle and the Public Corruption Section as additional petitioners. The petition 

includes nothing to suggest that the additional petitioners have any knowledge of the petition.

Case 1:16-cv-00496-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 3
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

regarding Pierce v. Gonzales (1:10-cv-00285-JLT), which was dismissed by this Court on 

December 3, 2012, for failure to state a claim.2 

I. No Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Petition

“The district courts shall have the original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of 

mandamus to compel an officer or an employee of the United States or any agency thereof to 

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Section 1361 does not give the Court 

jurisdiction to compel state officers, employees, or agencies to perform any of the requested 

actions set forth in the above-captioned petition. See Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F.Supp. 277, 279 

(E.D.Cal. 1984) (dismissing claims under § 1361 where the defendant was an officer or employee 

of the State of California, not of the United States). This means that the Court has no jurisdiction

under § 1361 to address the merits of Pierce’s petition to compel action by three of the four 

named Respondents, CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard, Inspector General Robert A. Barton, or the 

California Prison Oversight Committee, since these Respondents are state officers, employees, or 

agencies.

II. Respondent Federal Judicial Commission

Disposition of the claims with regard to the “Federal Judicial Commission” is less clear. 

Because Pierce does not identify this Respondent except for providing its address, “State Capitol, 

1

st Floor, Sacramento, California 95814,” its nature and function are unclear. No specific 

information is available in the public domain for an entity named Federal Judicial Commission 

and located anywhere in Sacramento, California. The title of the alleged agency suggests that it is 

a federal entity, but its address suggests that it is a state entity of some type. To the extent that 

///

 

2

Petitioner appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pierce v. Gonzales (No. 13-

15114). On March 28, 2013, the Ninth Circuit deemed the appeal “frivolous” and directed Petitioner to submit the 

$455.00 filing fee if he nonetheless wanted to proceed. On May 7, 2013, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for 

failure to pay the filing fee.

Case 1:16-cv-00496-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

this Respondent is a state entity, the Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over it. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1361.

The Court need not address this jurisdictional issue, however. Because the petition 

includes no specific mention of the Federal Judicial Commission and makes no specific 

allegations against it, the Court should dismiss the petition as to the Federal Judicial Commission 

for failure to state a cognizable claim.

III. Conclusion and Recommendation

The undersigned RECOMMENDS that, as to Respondents Jeffrey Beard, Robert A. 

Barton, and the California Prison Oversight Committee, the Court dismiss the petition with 

prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and as to Respondent Federal Judicial 

Commission, the Court dismiss the petition without prejudice for failure to state a cognizable 

claim.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner Pierce may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Petitioner is advised that failure to file 

objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00496-LJO-SKO Document 14 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3