Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01088/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01088-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD M. BIRD, No. CIV S-08-1088-MCE-CMK

Petitioner, 

vs. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DEBRA BOWEN,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this petition for

a writ of mandamus. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who

have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these

screening provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous

or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B)

and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court

must dismiss an action “[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject

Case 2:08-cv-01088-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 06/27/08 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

After Mr. Nielsen’s victory in the primary election, petitioner filed a separate civil

1

action seeking an order compelling the California Secretary of State to declare the election results

null and void. See CIV-S-08-1253-JAM-CMK. 

2

matter . . . .” Because petitioner, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule

12(h), the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction. 

In this case, petitioner plaintiff contends that Jim Nielsen, a candidate in a recent

primary election for state office held on June 3, 2008, does not meet the residency requirements

for office. He seeks a writ of mandamus from this court commanding respondent, the California

Secretary of State, to fulfill her oath of office by enforcing the residency requirements. The court

notes that this action was filed before the state primary election at issue. 

1

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

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). 

Here, the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff

does not seek an order directed at any federal official and this court cannot issue mandamus relief

directed at a state official. 

/ / /

Case 2:08-cv-01088-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 06/27/08 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

3

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that this action be

dismissed.

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 20 days

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

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations.” 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: June 26, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01088-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 3