Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00027/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00027-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES E. WASHINGTON, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

HONORABLE WILLIAM M. )

WUNDERLICH, et al., )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-027 REC/LJO

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

On January 9, 2006, a Petition for Writ of Mandamus

captioned "IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT" was filed in this court and assigned the above-listed

case number. Also filed on January 9, 2005 was an Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis captioned “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA”. 

On January 25, 2006, a letter from petitioner addressed to

the Clerk of this court was filed. In this letter, petitioner

asserts that the Petition for Writ of Mandamus was sent to the

Case 1:06-cv-00027-REC-LJO Document 7 Filed 01/31/06 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

2

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for filing pursuant to Rule 21,

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. He further asserts that

the Clerk’s Office for the Ninth Circuit erroneously forwarded

the Petition for Writ of Mandamus to this court. Petitioner

requests that this court “delete and withdraw the filing and the

docketing of the petition for writ of mandamus filed in your

office and sent [sic] the petition back to the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals where the original Writ of Mandamus was directed

for processing.”

The court has reviewed the filings in the Ninth Circuit via

Pacer. There is no record on Pacer of any filings by petitioner

in the Ninth Circuit. The Certificate of Service attached at

page 14 (out of 109) of the Petition for Writ of Mandate avers

that petitioner served an original and three copies of the

Petition for Writ of Mandate on the Ninth Circuit’s Clerk’s

Office on December 19, 2005 and that petitioner served United

States Magistrate Judge William M. Wunderlich in care of the

Clerk, United States District Court, 1130 “O” Street, Room 5000,

Fresno, CA on December 19, 2005. The court has also reviewed the

documents submitted to this court for filing on January 9, 2005. 

All that was submitted to this court was one copy of the Petition

for Writ of Mandate and a copy of the Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis. There is nothing accompanying these pleadings from

which it may be determined who sent them to this court. 

Because petitioner contends that he did not intend to file

the Petition for Writ of Mandamus with this court for review and

Case 1:06-cv-00027-REC-LJO Document 7 Filed 01/31/06 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

3

resolution, the court will dismiss the Petition without further

proceedings. The court will not transfer the pleadings filed

with this court to the Ninth Circuit because it appears that

petitioner’s pleadings have already been sent to the Ninth

Circuit for docketing and processing. 

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00027-REC-LJO Document 7 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3