Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00855/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00855-0/pdf.json

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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0855-dms-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -1- 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OWEN LINO, 

CDCR #J-45685, 

Civil No. 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CIVIL

ACTION:

(1) FOR FAILING TO PAY 

FILING FEE REQUIRED 

BY 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) AND/OR

FAILING TO MOVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS PURSUANT

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a);

(2) AS FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and

(3) DENYING REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND [ECF NO. 3] AS

MOOT

 vs.

B. MOSKOWITZ;

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

 

Plaintiff, a prisoner currently incarcerated at Kern Valley State Prison and proceeding pro

se, has filed a “Petition for Writ of Mandate” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), in which he

claims United States District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz has “fail[ed]and/or refuse[d] to order

relief Petitioner seeks” in the action he filed under Lino v. Kellerman, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No.

10cv0449 BTM (JMA).

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 4 Filed 05/23/11 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0855-dms-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -2- 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

I.

Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

 All parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding in a district court of the United

States, except an application for writ of habeas corpus, must pay a filing fee of $350. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if

the party is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d

1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Plaintiff has neither prepaid the $350 filing fee required to commence a civil action,

nor submitted a Motion to Proceed IFP. Therefore, this action is subject to immediate dismissal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).

II.

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)

The Court further finds that even if Plaintiff had paid the full $350 filing fee or moved

to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), his action nevertheless remains subject to sua

sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute requires the court to “review, before

docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing ... a civil action in

which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a

governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). When conducting this review, the court may

dismiss the action, or any portion of it, if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,

446-47 (9th Cir. 2000). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or

in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Plaintiff entitles this action as a “Petition for Writ of Mandate” and cites only to

California law. (See Pl.’s Pet. at 1.) In this action, Plaintiff is requesting that this Court order

another District Court Judge to rule on pending motions in Lino v. Kellerman, et al., S.D. Cal.

Civil Case No. 10-0449 BTM (JMA). (Id. at 1-2.) “A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary or

drastic remedy, used only to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 4 Filed 05/23/11 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

27

28

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\11cv0855-dms-no-pay-IFP&friv.wpd -3- 11cv0855 DMS (RBB)

jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” DeGeorge v.

U.S. District Court, 219 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted.) The

common-law writ of mandamus against a lower court is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which

provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all

writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages

and principles of law.” Id. Here, the action Plaintiff seeks is not one against a “lower court”

but rather a District Court. See Mullis v. United States Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.

1987) (district court lacks authority to issue writ of mandamus to another district court).

Moreover, the basis of Plaintiff’s claim appears to be that he does not believe that the other

Court is acting on his matter as quickly as he believes it should. If Plaintiff disagrees with the

ruling of a separate trial court, he has the ability to seek the proper relief with the appropriate

Court of Appeals. 

III.

Conclusion and Order

For the reasons set forth above, the Court hereby:

(1) DISMISSES this action sua sponte for failing to pay the $350 filing fee or file a

Motion to Proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) and 1915(a);

(2) DISMISSES this action as frivolous and without leave to amend pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1);

(3) DENIES Motion for Leave or Court Order to Amend/Supplement as MOOT; and

(4) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal from this Order would also be frivolous and

therefore, would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See Coppedge

v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962); Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548, 550 (9th Cir. 1977)

(indigent appellant is permitted to proceed IFP on appeal only if appeal would not be frivolous).

The Clerk shall close the file.

DATED: May 23, 2011

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00855-DMS-RBB Document 4 Filed 05/23/11 Page 3 of 3