Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01031/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01031-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND ALFORD BRADFORD, Case No. 1:07-cv-01031 OWW NEW (TAG)

Petitioner,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TO DISMISS COMPLAINT WITH

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

COUNTY OF KINGS,

Respondent,

D. RUIZ,

Real Party In Interest,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

On July 17, 2007, Raymond Alford Bradford (“Bradford”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se,

petitioned this Court to issue a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, a writ of prohibition, presumably

under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 1651, or Fed.R.Civ.P. 81. (Doc. 1). This matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72-302.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), this Court must “screen” a prisoner’s complaint to determine

whether the case should be dismissed because, among other things, it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1984). A frivolous claim

is based on an inarguable legal conclusion or a fanciful factual allegation. A federal court may dismiss

a claim as frivolous if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or if the factual contentions

are clearly baseless. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. The test for malice is a

Case 1:07-cv-01031-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 08/03/07 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

subjective one that requires the Court to determine whether the applicant is proceeding in good faith.

Kinney v. Plymouth Rock Squab. Co., 236 U.S. 43, 46 (1915); see, Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964,

968 n.1 (11th Cir. 1986). A lack of good faith is most commonly found in repetitive suits filed by

plaintiffs who have used the advantage of cost-free filing to file a multiplicity of suits. A complaint may

be inferred to be malicious if it suggests an intent to vex the defendants or abuse the judicial process by

relitigating claims decided in prior cases, Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1309 (D.C.Cir. 1981); if

it threatens violence or contains disrespectful references to the Court, id.; or if it contains untrue material

allegations of fact or false statements made with knowledge and an intent to deceive the Court, Horsey

v. Asher, 741 F.2d 209, 212 (8th Cir. 1984).

In his petition, Bradford alleges that the Kings County Superior Court Judge abused his

discretion when he denied Bradford’s motion for entry of a default judgment in a civil action Bradford

filed against Lieutenant Ruiz. (Doc. 1). Bradford now petitions this Court to issue a mandate directing

the state court judge to enter a default judgment against Ruiz and a judgment in favor of Bradford. (Id.

at 3). 

It is well settled that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus “to direct

state court or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” Clark v. State of Wash., 366 F.2d

678, 681-82 (9th Cir. 1966); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161

(9th Cir. 1991); In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001); Markowitz v. City of Memphis, No.

07-2213, 2007 WL 2123788, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. July 20, 2007); Thompson v. Ala., No. 3:07cv299, 2007

WL 2023496, at *1 (M.D. Ala. July 9, 2007). Bradford’s petition, therefore, is frivolous because it fails

to state a meritorious legal basis. Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325; Franklin, 745 F.2d at 1228. Moreover, no

amendment to Bradford’s petition would grant this Court jurisdiction to interfere with his state court

proceeding.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a mandate directing the state court to enter an order

in a state court case, Bradford’s petition legally is frivolous, and no amendment would enable Bradford

to obtain the relief he seeks from this Court, the undersigned recommends that:

Case 1:07-cv-01031-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 08/03/07 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

1. Bradford’s Petition for a Writ of Mandate (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

and 

2. The Clerk of this Court be DIRECTED to close this case.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fifteen

(15) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court and serve

a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings

and Recommendations.” Responses to the objections shall be served and filed within fifteen (15) days

after service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that 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).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-01031-OWW -LJO Document 3 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 3