Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

RICHARD JOHN VIEIRA,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Warden of California State 

Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-AWI-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: PETITIONER’S PRO SE 

SUBMISSION

Case to Remain Closed

This matter is before the Court following a pro se submission from Petitioner Richard 

John Vieira received on November 7, 2016. The submission appears to request that the Court 

issue a writ of mandamus to the California Supreme Court relating to petitioner’s capital 

conviction, sentence, and the direct and collateral reviews thereof. 

On February 5, 2015, the Court entered judgment denying petitioner’s federal petition for 

writ of habeas corpus on claims arising from his capital conviction and sentence. See Doc. Nos.

141 & 142. On March 6, 2015, petitioner, through counsel, filed a notice of appeal with the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Doc. Nos. 145, 146, 147; Richard 

Vieira v. Ron Davis, 9th Cir. Case No. 15-99003. 

Petitioner’s November 7 pro se submission does not include a case number. It is 

captioned “capital case”, “request for en banc review” and “writ of mandamus.” The submission 

refers to several statutes, including 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as partial authority, and it relates to 

petitioner’s capital conviction and sentence that is now pending with the Ninth Circuit. 

The Court declines to entertain the pro se submission for several reasons. First, “once an 

appeal is filed, the district court is divested over the matters being appealed.” National Ass’n of 

Home Builders v. Norton, 325 F.3d 1165, 1167 (9th Cir. 2003). The relief that Petitioner seeks 

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 166 Filed 11/18/16 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

through his pro se submission appears to be essentially the same relief he seeks with the Ninth 

Circuit. Although there are exceptions for actions that seek to maintain the status quo pending 

appeal, see Natural Res. Defense Council v. Southwest Marine, Inc., 242 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th 

Cir. 2001), Petitioner is not requesting that the Court maintain the status quo. Second, apart from 

the appeal, Petitioner has not demonstrated that this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361, 1651; Demos v. U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Washington, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that the Ninth 

Circuit lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court). Third, Petitioner is 

represented by counsel in his pending appeal. Counsel consists of the same individuals who 

represented him during the proceedings in this Court. It is not appropriate for Petitioner to make 

pro se filings in this Court regarding matters that are being appealed. Any such submissions 

should be made by counsel, not Petitioner, and be directed to the Ninth Circuit. Fourth, and 

related to the first reason, Petitioner submitted in a pro se capacity (despite being represented by 

counsel) a similar “mandamus petition” in the Ninth Circuit; the Ninth Circuit declined to 

entertain that petition. See Ninth Circuit Docket in Case 15-99003 at Doc. No. 34. 

In short, Petitioner’s pro se submission is improper and will not be entertained or 

considered in this Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to append the pro se submission as an exhibit to 

this order; 

2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to return the paper pro se submission to 

petitioner; and

3. This case REMAINS CLOSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 166 Filed 11/18/16 Page 2 of 2