Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02658/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02658-0/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

---

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 

KAB 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Brett Jones-Theophilious, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 13-2658-PHX-DGC (SPL) 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Brett Jones-Theophilious, who is confined in the Metropolitan Detention 

Center, filed a document entitled “Appeal, Challenge of Jurisdiction, Writ of Mandamus, 

Gate-Keeping by Agents of the AOU Acting in the Capacity of Overlord of Justice 

Default Judgment Requested” (Doc. 1) (the “Writ”).1

 The Court will deny the Writ and 

dismiss this case. 

In his Writ, Plaintiff names the State of Arizona and the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts as Respondents. Plaintiff alleges that, on October 8, 2013, he 

sent a Complaint to the “United States District Court in Arizona, at Maricopa County” 

and the Clerk of the Court did not file the Complaint.2

 Plaintiff also alleges that he sent 

Defendants a copy of the Complaint and they are in default and are “barred from 

 

1

 To facilitate the consideration of this case, the Clerk of the Court labeled the 

document a “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” on the Court’s docket. 

2

 To the extent Plaintiff sent his Complaint to this Court for filing, the Clerk of this 

Court has no record of receiving the Complaint to which Plaintiff refers. 

Case 2:13-cv-02658-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 01/28/14 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

contesting or rebutting affidavit complaint.” Plaintiff requests that the Court order the 

Clerk to file the Complaint and to enter default judgment against the Defendants. 

“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted in the court’s sound discretion.” 

Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). For mandamus 

relief, three elements must be satisfied: (1) petitioner has a clear and certain claim; (2) the 

respondent has a non-discretionary, ministerial duty, which is so plain as to be free from 

doubt; and (3) the petitioner does not have an adequate available remedy. Id. at 1153. 

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of these elements. Accordingly, the Writ will be 

denied and this case will be dismissed. If Plaintiff seeks to file a Complaint in this Court, 

he may mail an original plus one copy of the complaint and any other documents 

submitted to the Court. If Plaintiff wishes to have a file-stamped copy of the document 

returned to him, he must send one additional copy to the Court. All copies must be 

identical to the original. Plaintiff must also submit the appropriate filing fee for the 

Complaint or an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court’s address is: 

United States District Court 

District of Arizona - Phoenix Division 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 130 

401 West Washington Street, SPC 1 

Phoenix, AZ 85003-2118

 Based on the foregoing, 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Writ (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed. 

The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 28th day of January, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02658-DGC--SPL Document 5 Filed 01/28/14 Page 2 of 2