Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00542/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00542-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMMY L. MORRIS )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-00542-LJO WMW HC

ORDER DENYING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of mandate. In

his petition, Petitioner seeks relief in the form of an order from this court reversing his

judgment and sentence.

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. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ, and is issued only when (1) the

plaintiff’s claim is “clear and certain;” (2) the defendant official’s duty to act is ministerial

Case 1:07-cv-00542-LJO-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/31/07 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

and “so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is

available. Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9 Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). th

Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to

perform a duty; federal courts are without the power to issue mandamus to direct state courts

or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties. A petition for mandamus to

compel a state court to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. 

Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-72 (9 Cir.) (Imposing no filing in forma th

pauperis order), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1082 (1991); Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681

(9 Cir. 1966) (attorney contested disbarment and sought reinstatement); Dunlap v. Corbin, th

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 (9 Cir. 1982). th

In this case, Petitioner asks the court to reverse a judgment and sentence of a state

court. This relief does not lie within the mandamus authority of this court. Accordingly, the

petition for writ of mandamus is HEREBY DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to

CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 31, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00542-LJO-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/31/07 Page 2 of 2