Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04022/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04022-0/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

INFINITY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

INFINITY, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICHARD W. WEIKING, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

No. C 07-4022 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

No. C 07-4803 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff is a prisoner of the State of California who is

incarcerated at Ironwood State Prison. He has filed two pro se

petitions for a writ of mandamus. He has also filed applications

for in forma pauperis status. However, upon reviewing both

petitions, it is apparent that the petition for a writ of mandamus

in Case No. C 07-4803 CW (PR) should have been filed as a

supplement to the petition for a writ of mandamus in Case No. C

07-4022 CW (PR). 

 BACKGROUND

Plaintiff contends that a writ of mandamus is the proper

vehicle by which to compel Defendants to "stop changing, adding

to, or disrespecting [the] legal name of Petitioner." He claims

Case 4:07-cv-04022-CW Document 5 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

that Defendants have added "a.k.a. James Frank Strong" or "a.k.a.

Frank James Strong" next to his legal name, Infinity, in his

filings in state and federal court.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard

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 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). 

However, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

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

1990).

II. Writ of Mandamus

The federal mandamus statute provides: "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." 28

U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy,

however. It is available to compel a federal officer to perform

a duty only if: (1) the plaintiff's claim is clear and certain;

(2) the duty of the officer is ministerial and so plainly

prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate

remedy is available. See Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345

(9th Cir. 1986). Plaintiff has named Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04022-CW Document 5 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of the Court, as a defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

Wieking "openly, without due cause, or jurisdiction added,

'a.k.a. James Frank Strong' to the title sheet of Plaintiff's

petition for writ of mandamus" in Case No. C 07-4022 CW (PR). 

Defendant Wieking must make a reasonable inquiry and ensure the

accuracy of records in response to an inmate's contention that

erroneous information is being maintained in his filings, cf.

Sellers v. Bureau of Prisons, 959 F.2d 307, 312 (D.C. Cir. 1992);

however, this does not entitle Plaintiff to mandamus relief as he

has an adequate remedy available through the Privacy Act, 5

U.S.C. § 552a, see id. at 312-13. 

The Court has no authority to take the actions requested by

Plaintiff against the remaining defendants, who are state actors,

by way of a writ of mandamus. Federal 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 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.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1082 (1991); 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 plaintiff 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.

Case 4:07-cv-04022-CW Document 5 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, 

1. The Clerk is ordered to revoke filing of the petition

for a writ of mandamus in Case No. C 07-4803 CW (PR) and to file

it as a supplement to the petition for a writ of mandamus in Case

No. C 07-4022 CW (PR). 

2. The Clerk shall close Case No. 07-4803 CW (PR). 

Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status in Case No.

07-4803 CW (PR) is terminated as moot because no filing fee is

due as this action was opened in error.

3. Plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandamus and

supplement to the petition for a writ of mandamus are DISMISSED

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

4. Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis status in

Case No. C 07-4022 is GRANTED, and the Clerk of the Court shall

close Case No. 07-4022 CW (PR).

5. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a judgment in

accordance with this Order and close both files as indicated

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 1/15/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04022-CW Document 5 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFINITY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RICHARD W. WIEKING et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV07-04803 CW 

 CV07-04022 CW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on January 15, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Infinity C27692

Ironwood State Prison

C3-203-Low

19005 Wiley's Well Road

Blythe, CA 92226

Dated: January 15, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Sheilah Cahill, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:07-cv-04022-CW Document 5 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5