Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00178/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00178-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD M. BIRD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAXINE WATERS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-CV-0178-TLN-DMC-P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for mandamus relief. 

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 1. 

Plaintiff names the following members of the United States House of 

Representatives as responding parties: (1) Congresswoman Maxine Waters; (2) Speaker of the 

House Nancy Pelosi; and (3) Congressman Adam Schiff. See id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks an order by 

way of a writ of mandamus to direct Waters, Pelosi, and Schiff to “Obey all the Immigration 

Laws.” Id. at 2. According to plaintiff, the responding parties’ support of so-called “Sanctuary” 

laws in the State of California violated their oaths of office. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), all federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their 

respective jurisdictions. . . .” In addition, the district court has original jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1361 to issue writs of mandamus. That jurisdiction is limited, however, to writs of 

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

Case 2:20-cv-00178-TLN-DMC Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 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

perform a duty. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). It is also well-established that, with very 

few exceptions specifically outlined by Congress, the federal court cannot issue a writ of 

mandamus commanding action by a state or its agencies. See e.g. Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for 

Eastern Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991). Where the federal court does have 

jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of mandamus, such a writ may not issue unless it is to 

enforce an established right by compelling the performance of a corresponding non-discretionary 

ministerial act. See Finley v. Chandler, 377 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1967). 

In this case, the court finds mandamus relief is not appropriate. In particular, 

plaintiff does not seek an order to compel the responding parties to perform a non-discretionary 

ministerial act. See id. Rather, plaintiff requests an order compelling the responding parties to 

perform discretionary legislative acts to the extent plaintiff seeks federal legislation to prohibit 

states from adopting “sanctuary” policies. To the extent plaintiff is challenging the State of 

California’s “sanctuary” policies, this court may not direct action on the part of state officials. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also Demos, 925 F.2d 1160.

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s complaint be 

dismissed with prejudice.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 

with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 

Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: February 19, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00178-TLN-DMC Document 4 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 2