Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00346-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEROY GOMEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00346-JDP

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DISMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS

ECF No. 1

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

Petitioner Leroy Gomez, a state pretrial detainee without counsel, petitioned for a writ of 

mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.1 ECF No. 1. Petitioner seeks an order directing the Superior 

Court of Kern County to review his claim of vindictive prosecution against the prosecutor at his 

preliminary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 1-2. On April 7, 2020, we ordered petitioner to show cause 

within thirty days why his petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 8. 

More than thirty days have passed, and petitioner has not responded to our order. We recommend 

that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

1 Although petitioner does not identify the federal statute under which he seeks relief, considering 

the form of relief he seeks, we will construe his filing as a petition for a writ of mandamus under 

the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 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

Discussion

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their respective 

jurisdictions.” This 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. 

Absent certain rare exceptions, a 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) (explaining that “to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a 

writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some action, the petitions are 

frivolous as a matter of law”). Here, the petitioner seeks to compel a trial judge of a California 

state court to review his vindictive prosecution claim. Because petitioner does not seek an order 

compelling action on the part of the United States or any federal agency, this court lacks 

jurisdiction over his petition. Therefore, we recommend that his petition be dismissed.

Certificate of Appealability

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 

court’s dismissal of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 

Cases requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final 

order adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner 

makes “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

This standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 

court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 

are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the Court decline to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 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

Findings and Recommendations

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court dismiss the petition for lack of 

jurisdiction and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. These findings and 

recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 

recommendations, the parties may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then 

review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Order

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 

reviewing these findings and recommendations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

No. 206.

Case 1:20-cv-00346-DAD-JDP Document 10 Filed 05/18/20 Page 3 of 3