Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02175/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02175-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\10cv2175-dsm-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -1- 10cv2175

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RALPH NIZ, 

CDCR #D-19048, 

Civil No. 10-2175 LAB (JMA)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

(1) FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

AND

(2) AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

 vs.

McEWEN, Warden,

Respondent.

 

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison and proceeding pro

se, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a),

in which he seeks to compel a Warden at Calipatria to provide him with access to a “mandatory

pre-bankruptcy credit counseling course.” See Pet. ¶ 13.

I.

Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

Case 3:10-cv-02175-LAB-JMA Document 2 Filed 10/29/10 Page 1 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\10cv2175-dsm-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -2- 10cv2175

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if

the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action,

nor has submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, this action is subject to immediate

dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II.

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

The Court further finds that even if Plaintiff had paid the full $350 filing fee or moved

to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his action nevertheless remains subject to sua

sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute requires the court to “review, before

docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing ... a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). When conducting this review, the court may

dismiss the action, or any portion of it, if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Rhodes v. Robinson, __ F.3d __,

2010 WL 3489777 at *1 (9th Cir. 2010); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47 (9th Cir. 2000).

An action is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Here, Petitioner invokes jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), but

asks this Court to compel, or issue mandamus to, a state prison Warden whom he claims is

violating various provisions of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and thereby

obstructing his access to a “pre-filing bankruptcy credit counseling service.” See Pet. ¶ 4. 

The common-law writ of mandamus against a lower court is codified at 28 U.S.C.

§ 1651(a), which provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of

Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” This is a “‘drastic and extraordinary’” remedy

Case 3:10-cv-02175-LAB-JMA Document 2 Filed 10/29/10 Page 2 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\10cv2175-dsm-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -3- 10cv2175

“‘reserved for really extraordinary causes.’” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of

Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 379-80 (2004) (quoting Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259-260

(1947)). 

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does not invest a federal district court with the power to

compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another state official’s duties under any

circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (11th

Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct

to state law). Mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is only available to compel an officer

of the United States to perform a duty, and only under extraordinary circumstances; nothing in

the All Writs Act provides a federal court with the power to issue mandamus to direct state

courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81.

Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain from some action is

frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-72 (9th Cir.

1991); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998)

(federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the

performance of their duties); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F. Supp. 183, 187 (D. Ariz. 1981) (plaintiff

sought order from federal court directing state court to provide speedy trial), aff’d without

opinion, 673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1982); Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F. Supp. 277, 279 (C.D. Cal.

1984) (federal mandamus statute has no application to state officers or employees); Mitchell v.

Curry, 2010 WL 3386005 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (unpublished) (dismissing as frivolous prisoner’s

petition for writ of mandamus requesting federal court to compel state superior court and prison

officials to take action); cf. Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.

1987) (district court lacks authority to issue writ of mandamus to another district court).

III.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file a

Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a);

Case 3:10-cv-02175-LAB-JMA Document 2 Filed 10/29/10 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\10cv2175-dsm-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -4- 10cv2175

(2) DISMISSES this action as frivolous and without leave to amend pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and;

(3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous and

therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir.

1977) (indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be

frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: October 29, 2010

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02175-LAB-JMA Document 2 Filed 10/29/10 Page 4 of 4