Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00071/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00071-2/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

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

Rwayne Johnson,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER and 

MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL. 

[DKT. NO. 9]

On January 12, 2017, Petitioner Rwayne Johnson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 

proceeding pro se,

1

initiated this action against the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(“Respondent”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner concurrently filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”) and a motion for court-appointed counsel. (Dkt. Nos. 2, 3.) On April 

19, 2017, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on account 

of Petitioner’s failure to submit a certified copy of his prison trust fund account statement 

or any other information about his financial status, dismissed Petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Mandamus for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 

 

1 On the Civil Cover Sheet submitted with his Complaint, Petitioner indicated that the nature of his suit 

is a “prisoner petition.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Petitioner’s return address is the same as the William P. 

Clements Prison located in Amarillo, Texas. (Dkt. No. 1 at 7.) 

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

and denied as moot Petitioner’s request for court-appointed counsel.2 (Dkt. No. 4.) Out 

of an abundance of caution, the Court granted Petitioner forty-five days to re-open the 

case by (1) filing an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus which cured all of the 

deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court and by (2) paying the appropriate filing 

fee or applying to proceed in forma pauperis in accordance with the requirements of 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). (Id.) Petitioner was warned that failure to file an Amended Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus within the time provided would result in a final Order dismissing 

this civil action based both on Petitioner’s failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and his failure to 

prosecute in compliance with a Court order requiring amendment. (Id. at 6 (citing Lira v. 

Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005) (“If a plaintiff does not take advantage of 

the opportunity to fix his complaint, a district court may convert the dismissal of the 

complaint into dismissal of the entire action.”)).)

Petitioner subsequently filed, nunc pro tunc to June 8, 2017 a motion and a 

proposed order dismissing the instant case for lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 6.). The 

Court confirmed its prior dismissal for failure to file an Amended Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus, failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) 

and 1915A(b)(1), and failure to pay the requisite filing fee or satisfy the requirements to 

proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 7). 

On January 26, 2018, Petitioner filed a “Motion to Vacate Void Order and 

Enforcement Crime Victim Rights Act; and Mandatory Appointment of Counsel.” The 

Court will construe this motion to be a Rule 60(b)(4) motion for relief on the basis of a 

void judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 9). As with Petitioner’s previous 

filing, it is unclear what petitioner seeks to accomplish by way of this filing, which 

 

2 The Court also noted that to the extent Petitioner wishes to appeal a Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

decision regarding his service-connected benefits, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims has exclusive jurisdiction to review such decisions. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC

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

contains scattered, incomplete citations to inapposite case law and continues to fail to 

address the concerns laid out in the Court’s April 19, 2017 Order. 

Petitioner appears to argue that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue its previous 

orders. See (Dkt. No. 9 at 2). Petitioner fails to substantively address how the Court 

lacked jurisdiction. The Court observes that Petitioner requested the district court’s

jurisdiction when he requested a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. See (Dkt. No. 1) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1361) (“The district courts shall 

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.”). Further, the Court properly dismissed Petitioners’ claim for failure to state a 

claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1). In addition, 

the Court once again DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ request for appointment of counsel.3 

Accordingly, the Court will DENY Petitioner’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion and once 

again CONFIRM the dismissal of this civil action for failure to file an Amended Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus, failure to state a claim for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1), and failure to pay the requisite filing fee or satisfy the 

requirements to proceed in forma pauperis. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2018

 

3 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, there is no “mandatory” right to counsel in a civil case. See United 

States v. Sardone, 94 F.3d 1233, 1236 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[I]t is well-established that there is generally no 

right to counsel in civil cases.”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00071-GPC-KSC Document 10 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3