Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02040/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02040-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

ALAMIN SAMAD,

Petitioner,

v.

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE 

OF CALIFORNIA IN THE THIRD 

APPELLATE DISTRICT, et al.,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv-2040-WBS-EFB P

ORDER

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel. He seeks a “PETITION FOR

PEREMTORY WRIT OF MANDATE” to vacate orders of the state courts and to instruct the state 

court of appeal to set petitioner’s matter for hearing. ECF No. 1. On January 20, 2016, the court 

dismissed this mandamus action for lack of jurisdiction. ECF No. 9. Judgment was duly entered. 

ECF No. 10. Petitioner now moves “for correction” pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. ECF No. 11. 

Rule 60(b) provides:

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative 

from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, 

inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, 

with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a 

new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or 

extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the 

Case 2:15-cv-02040-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is 

based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it 

prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

Petitioner notes that the order of dismissal mistakenly referred to this action as one for 

habeas corpus relief brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court acknowledges that mistake 

and the dismissal order is hereby amended to correct it. Nonetheless, this court has a continuing 

obligation to sua sponte inquire into its own jurisdiction. FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 

230-31 (1990); Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 720 F.3d 1179, 1181 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(“Moreover, it is well established that district courts may address questions of subject matter 

jurisdiction sua sponte.”). Here, petitioner was afforded the opportunity to object to the 

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and made no showing that the court does in 

fact have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. Moreover, correcting the mistake identified by 

petitioner does not justify relief from the judgment that was entered, which dismissed the petition 

for an order of mandamus directed at a California Court of Appeal.

1

 

While petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion points out a mistaken reference to his petition as a 

petition one for habeas corpus (rather mandamus), he has not shown how this court has subject 

matter jurisdiction to grant mandamus against the state court. Indeed, “[f]ederal courts are 

without power to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”

Sully v. Lungren, 842 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Demos v. U.S. District Court, 

925 F.2d 1160, 1161–72 (9th Cir. 1991)); see also Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th 

Cir. 1966). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion (ECF No.

11) is granted for the limited purpose of correcting the reference to his petition and is otherwise 

denied.

Dated: May 12, 2016

 

1

The dismissal order adopted the underlying findings and recommendations to dismiss the 

mandamus petition for lack of jurisdiction. See ECF No. 7. 

Case 2:15-cv-02040-WBS-EFB Document 12 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 2