Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00493/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00493-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION and SEAVON 

PIERCE,

Petitioners,

v.

JEFFREY BEARD, ROBERT A. 

BARTON, and OFFICE OF INTERNAL 

AFFAIRS DIRECTOR,

Respondents.

No. 1:16-cv-00493-DAD-SKO HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

THAT THE COURT DISMISS THE 

PETITION TO COMPEL FOR 

LACK OF JURISDICTION

Petitioner Seavon Pierce (“Pierce”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition to 

compel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Pierce alleges that the named Respondents Jeffrey Beard, 

Robert A. Barton, Federal Judicial Commission, and the Office of Internal Affairs Director, have 

interfered with Pierce’s ability to communicate with his co-petitioner, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation,

1

and have violated both Petitioners’ First Amendment rights of “freedom of 

speech, freedom of expression as correspondence, confidential correspondence, [and] the sending 

and receiving of mail to and from the petitioners.”2 Doc. 1 at 2. Pierce alleges that the named 

 

1 There is no indication in the petition that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is aware that Pierce has named it as a 

co-petitioner.

2 The body of the petition also appears to contemplate multiple petitioners not named in the caption, including “the 

Case 1:16-cv-00493-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 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

2

Respondents have interfered with Pierce’s legal mail and have impeded his access to the prison 

law library to pursue his already existing lawsuits. Pierce asks this Court to compel the named 

Respondents to enforce the laws, to deliver his mail, and to provide him with unspecified 

administrative remedies that Respondents have previously denied Petitioner.

I. No Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Petition to Compel

“The district courts shall have the original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of 

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

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Pierce seeks to compel various actions 

by the named Respondents, none of which are federal officers, employees, or agencies. Section 

1361 does not give the Court jurisdiction to compel state officers, employees, or agencies such as 

Respondents to perform any of the requested actions set forth in the above-captioned petition.

See Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F.Supp. 277, 279 (E.D.Cal. 1984) (dismissing claims under § 1361 

where the defendant was an officer or employee of the State of California, not of the United 

States). This means that the Court has no jurisdiction to address the merits of Pierce’s petition to 

compel.

II. Conclusion and Recommendation

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court dismiss the petition for lack 

of subject matter jurisdiction.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C ' 636(b)(1). Within thirty 

(30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Petitioner Pierce may 

file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to 

Magistrate Judge=s Findings and Recommendations.@ Petitioner is advised that failure to file 

 

media; the press; attorney[]s; government/public officials; [and] the first petitioner listed [the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation], is also defined as the public, and as a separate party of interest.” Doc. 1 at 2.

Case 1:16-cv-00493-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 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

3

objections within the specified time may constitute waiver of the right to appeal the District 

Court's order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 ((9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00493-DAD-SKO Document 17 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 3