Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01262-10/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIFT A. Z. DIVINE ALLAH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-01262-OWW-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS 

(Doc. 35)

Plaintiff Gift A. Z. Divine Allah (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On June 4, 2007, plaintiff

filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff seeks a court order requiring prison officials to

provide him with a chronological printout of all of his inmate appeals, and mandating that no further

mail be sent to Parole Agent J. Greenlee, Parole Region II, Fresno. (Doc. 35, 4:1-15.) 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts have “original jurisdiction of any action in the

nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy . . . [and] is

appropriately issued only when (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the defendant

official’s duty to act is ministerial, and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no

other adequate remedy is available.” Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

///

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 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

27

28

2

The Court has no jurisdiction over state officials, particularly Plaintiff’s state parole officer.

28 U.S.C. § 1651; see also Demos v. United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160,

1161 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore, plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandamus seeking orders directed

at prison officials is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01262-OWW -GSA Document 37 Filed 06/12/07 Page 2 of 2