Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02090/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-02090-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

– 1 – 15cv2090 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SEAVON PIERCE, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 15-cv-2090-BAS(JMA) 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

WITH PREJUDICE 

[ECF No. 1] v. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, 

et al., 

 Respondents. 

On September 14, 2015, Petitioner Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding 

pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The 

respondents named in this action appear to all be California state actors, including 

the California Attorney General’s Office and California Attorney General Kamala D. 

Harris. Petitioner requests, among other things, “action to compel” officers to 

“perform his duty,” and provide transcripts and other documents. To date, Petitioner 

has not filed the required $400 filing fee and has not requested to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 
 – 2 – 15cv2090 

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 

Under 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 citation 

omitted). 

Upon reviewing the petition, the Court finds that it lacks the authority to take 

the actions requested by Petitioner by way of a writ of mandamus. “Federal courts 

are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or 

other state officials in the performance of their duties.” Tung V. Tran v. Carr, No. C 

10-04779 CW(PR), 2010 WL 4977783, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2010). “A petition 

for writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some 

action is frivolous as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Demos v. U.S. District Court for E. 

Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1123); 

see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for 

writ of mandamus that would order state trial court to give plaintiff access to certain 

trial transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction 

petition; federal court may not, as a general rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial 

officer to control or interfere with state court litigation). Consequently, under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)—which permits the court to dismiss an action at the outset if 

determined to be “frivolous or malicious” or if the action “fails to state a claim on 

which relief may be granted”—this action warrants dismissal. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). 

Moreover, “parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in such court, 

whether by original process, removal or otherwise,” with the exception of 

applications for a writ of habeas corpus, must pay this district’s full filing fee of $400. 
 – 3 – 15cv2090 

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 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Even prisoners who bring civil actions are required to pay 

the full amount of a filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). Petitioner’s failure to pay the 

filing fee provides an additional independent basis for dismissal. 

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE

Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: April 15, 2016