Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00338/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00338-1/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

---

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

RONALD EARL LEGARDY, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF )

CALIFORNIA, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:07-cv-00338-AWI WMW

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner is proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting that

this court issue an order requiring the California Superior Court to take certain actions.

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-00338-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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 pauperis th

order), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1082 (1991); Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9 Cir. th

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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this petition for writ of

mandamus directed to the California Superior Court be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule

72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party 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 Recommendation.” Replies to the

objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by

mail) after service of the objections. The court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are 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).

Case 1:07-cv-00338-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00338-AWI-WMW Document 7 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3