Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00170/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00170-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEITH THOMAS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN DOE, CLERK, MARIN

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-0170 TEH (PR)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, a prisoner of the State of California currently incarcerated at California

State Prison-Sacramento, has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,

seeking mandamus relief against the Marin County Superior Court. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner’s complaint is somewhat incomprehensible. However, it appears that

he seeks mandamus relief against the Superior Court based on their failure to respond to

a civil complaint he has filed seeking documents from a matter before the Grand Jury in

Marin County. 

 ANALYSIS

I Standard of Review

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint "is frivolous, malicious, or

Case 3:07-cv-00170-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 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

fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be

liberally construed, however. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

Cir. 1990).

II Legal Claims

Plaintiff seeks mandamus relief based on the failure of the Marin County Superior

Court to respond to a civil complaint he filed seeking certain court documents. However,

federal district courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state

judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties. A petition for

a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action

is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-

62 (9th Cir. 1991) (imposing no filing in forma pauperis order); Clark v. Washington,

366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (attorney contested disbarment and sought

reinstatement); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F. Supp. 183, 187 (D. Ariz. 1981) (plaintiff sought

order from federal court directing state court to provide speedy trial), aff'd without

opinion, 673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1982); Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F. Supp. 277, 279

(C.D. Cal. 1984) (§ 1361 has no application to state officers or employees); see also, In

re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of

mandamus that would order state trial court to give petitioner access to certain trial

transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition; federal

court may not, as a general rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or

interfere with state court litigation). Plaintiff's mandamus remedy, if any, lies in state

court. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and close the file.

Case 3:07-cv-00170-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 01/19/07 THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00170-TEH Document 3 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3