Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00470/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00470-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM N. LUCY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00470-CG-N

)

STATE OF ALABAMA, )

Defendant. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This action is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 1) filed 

by William N. Lucy, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se. In his petition, Lucy 

requests that this Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, direct the Circuit Court of Mobile 

County, Alabama, to vacate a criminal conviction and sentence imposed by that court 

against Lucy, due to the state court’s alleged failure to hold an arraignment and the trial 

judge’s alleged failure to recuse himself from the proceedings.

By previous Order (Doc. 2), the undersigned, explaining that such relief was not 

available through a writ of mandamus, construed Lucy’s mandamus petition as a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and directed him, no later 

than October 12, 2016, to file a new habeas petition on this Court’s form, and to either 

pay the $5.00 statutory filing fee for such a petition or file a motion to proceed without 

prepayment of fees. Copies of this Court’s forms for such filings were sent to Lucy 

along with that order.

To date, Lucy has not complied with any of these directives. Instead, Lucy filed 

an “Objection to Petition for Writ of Mandamus to be Construed as 2254 Habeas Petition 

and Motion to Amend Writ of Mandamus” (Doc. 3), in which he “make[s] objection to 

petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus to be construed as 2254 habeas petition” and 

seeks to amend his petition to add a number of new grounds for relief, claiming he is 

Case 1:16-cv-00470-CG-N Document 4 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 3
mounting “a factual and facial attack” on his state court conviction.

Because Lucy insists on pursuing mandamus relief in this action, rather than 

habeas relief under § 2254, the undersigned treats Lucy’s petition (Doc. 1) solely as a 

mandamus petition and finds that it is due to be DENIED. As was pointed out to Lucy 

in the previous order (Doc. 2), “a federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of 

mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their 

duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cty. Superior 

Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam).1 Accord, e.g., Johnson v. 

Georgia, No. 15-11364, 2016 WL 4709078, at *3 (11th Cir. Sept. 9, 2016) (per curiam) 

(unpublished) (“The district court concluded correctly that it lacked jurisdiction to issue 

a writ of mandamus to direct the Spalding County Trial Court in the performance of the 

state court’s duties.” (citing Moye)). To the extent Lucy seeks release from prison, his

“sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus[,]” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 

500 (1973); Johnson, 2016 WL 4709078, at *3, which he has refused to file on this 

Court’s form as ordered. See Rule 2(c)-(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 

the United States District Court; S.D. Ala. CivLR 9(a). Finally, the statute under 

which Lucy seeks mandamus relief, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, only permits a federal district 

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

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” It does not apply to courts of the State of 

Alabama.

Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a), the 

undersigned RECOMMENDS that Lucy’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 1) be 

 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh 

Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down 

prior to October 1, 1981.

Case 1:16-cv-00470-CG-N Document 4 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 3
DENIED, that his motion to amend his petition (Doc. 3) be DENIED as futile, and that 

this mandamus action be DISMISSED.

Notice of Right to File Objections

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the 

manner provided by law. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything in 

it must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this document, file specific 

written objections with the Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b); S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(c). The parties should note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 

3-1, “[a] party failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations 

contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based 

on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions if the party was informed of the time 

period for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to object. In the absence 

of a proper objection, however, the court may review on appeal for plain error if 

necessary in the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to be specific, an 

objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate Judge’s 

report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection 

that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the Magistrate 

Judge is not specific.

DONE this the 14th day of November 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson 

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00470-CG-N Document 4 Filed 11/14/16 Page 3 of 3