Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00677-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

1

 Silveyra has been superseded by statute on other grounds. See Campos v. I.N.S., 62

F.3d 311 (9th Cir. 1995).

2

 It appears petitioner ultimately wishes to challenge the fact that he has been deemed a

gang member by certain prison officials. While the court expresses no opinion as to whether

petitioner could ultimately state a claim upon which this court could grant petitioner any relief,

petitioner may challenge his conditions of confinement, if those conditions violate some

provision of the Constitution, in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO PRADO,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0677 GEB KJM P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner has filed a document titled “writ of mandamus” in which petitioner asks

that California Department of Corrections officials process one of petitioner’s prisoner

grievances. The Federal Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) may only be invoked to compel

federal officials to perform certain duties. Cf. Silveyra v. Moschorak, 989 F.2d 1012, 1014 n.1

(9th Cir. 1993).1 Because California Department of Corrections officials are not federal officials,

the court will recommend that this action be dismissed.2

Case 2:05-cv-00677-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 04/21/06 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

2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

petitioner’s April 6, 2005 “writ of mandamus” be dismissed.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: April 21, 2006.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

prad0677.57(4.06.05)

Case 2:05-cv-00677-GEB -KJM Document 5 Filed 04/21/06 Page 2 of 2