Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00606-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHKEEM WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM PEDRIERO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:12-cv-00606-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT 

OF MANDAMUS

(Doc. 86)

Plaintiff Akheem Williams (“Plaintiff”), a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 17, 2012. This 

action is proceeding against Defendants Garcia, Valdez, Cortez, Silva, Castro, Day, Stepp, Collier, 

Torres, Delia, Jr., and Tordsen (“Defendants”) for use of excessive physical force, in violation of 

the United States Constitution. 

On February 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Defendants filed an 

opposition on February 25, 2014. The motion has been submitted upon the record without oral 

argument. Local Rule 230(l).

Plaintiff‟s petition fails as a matter of law. The All Writs Act provides that “[t]he Supreme 

Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in 

the aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1651(a). While a writ of mandamus may be issued under the All Writs Act, 

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/18/14 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

27

28

2

“[m]andamus is a „drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.‟” 

Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court 

for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 2586 (2004)). In addition to 

jurisdictional issues arising from Plaintiff‟s desire for a federal writ directed at county officials, 

see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380, 124 S.Ct. at 2586 (section 1651(a) codified the common-law writ of 

mandamus against a lower court); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Washington, 925 

F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (no jurisdiction to issue writ to a state court), Plaintiff cannot 

demonstrate (1) the absence of any other adequate means to attain relief and (2) a clear and 

indisputable right to the issuance of the writ, Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. at 2587.

Plaintiff is actually attempting to obtain discovery. However, the deadline for the 

completion of all discovery was November 12, 2013, and his motion for modification of the 

scheduling order was denied on December 4, 2013, thereby barring him from seeking relief under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. (Doc. 18.)

Plaintiff is not entitled to mandamus relief and his petition is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2014 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00606-SKO Document 93 Filed 03/18/14 Page 2 of 2