Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00496/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-00496-0/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

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE STEPHEN,

Petitioner,

v.

SILVERMAN, PAEZ, BEA; et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 10-496 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Jimmie Stephen, an inmate at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, filed a petition

for writ of mandamus to compel a panel of judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit to vacate the panel’s earlier dismissal of his appeal from an adverse decision in an action

he had filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 

 A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss

any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,

or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at

1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police

Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

Case 3:10-cv-00496-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 2
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

The petition is plainly frivolous. A district court has no authority to review any ruling

of a federal court of appeals. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 n.19

(9th Cir. 1987). This action is DISMISSED with prejudice because it is frivolous.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2010 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00496-SI Document 5 Filed 04/01/10 Page 2 of 2