Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02573/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02573-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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

INFINITY, No. CIV S-07-2573-WBS-CMK-P

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

SECRETARY OF STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

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

mandamus. Petitioner seeks mandamus relief from this court “pursuant to CCP § 1085" to

“compel relief from illegal suspension of petitioner’s church.” The respondents are state

agencies and/or officials. Petitioner claims that respondents have improperly suspended his

California non-profit corporation, The Church of GOD: The Omnipotent & Omniscient &

Omnipresent Love. 

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

respective jurisdictions. . .” Here, the relief petitioner seeks would not be in aid of this court’s

jurisdiction. Rather, he seeks order directing state agencies and/or officials to take certain action. 

Case 2:07-cv-02573-WBS-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/27/07 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

Therefore, this petition cannot proceed under § 1651(a). 

The district court does have 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). In this case, petitioner has not named any officers or employees of the

United States as respondents. Therefore, the petition cannot proceed under § 1361. 

Finally, it is well-established that 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). 

For these reasons, the court finds that dismissal of the instant mandamus petition

is appropriate. 

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this mandamus petition

be dismissed.

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 the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 26, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-02573-WBS-CMK Document 6 Filed 12/27/07 Page 2 of 2