Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-KES-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(ECF No. 157)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for writ of mandamus, filed June 17, 2024, 

wherein Plaintiff requests the Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel his unnamed 

correctional counselor to provide him with a review of his central file. (ECF No. 157.) 

Defendants filed an opposition on July 3, 2024, and Plaintiff filed a reply on July22, 2024. (ECF 

Nos. 160, 163.) 

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The writ of mandamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really 

extraordinary causes.’ ” In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 840 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ex parte 

Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947) ); see also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 164 Filed 07/23/24 Page 1 of 4
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

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (“This Court repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus 

is an extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations.”).

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 

(emphasis added). “The federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct 

state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties....” Clark v. Washington, 

366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966); see also Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988) 

(“The federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials....”).

Federal courts have no jurisdiction or authority to issue mandamus to direct non-federal 

entities or officials in the performance of their duties. See Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 

678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (“The federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to 

direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties . . .”); Fox v. City of 

Pasadena, 78 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1935) (federal district court has no jurisdiction to issue writ of 

mandamus to compel city officers to perform duties under state law and city charter). 

Accordingly, a petition that seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a non-federal actor to take action 

is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 

1991).

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Lack of Jurisdiction

Here, Plaintiff requests the Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel his correctional 

counselor to provide him an Olson1review of his central file. The extraordinary remedy of 

mandamus is not available in the instant case because the correctional counselor is not an officer, 

employee, or agency of the United States, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to compel action by 

California state officials. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and declaratory relief 

1 State law provides a means for a prisoner to access his central and medical files through standard prison procedures. 

See In re Olson, 37 Cal. App. 3d at 790. 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 164 Filed 07/23/24 Page 2 of 4
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

should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Craig v. Koenig, No. 19-cv-05661-EMC, 

2020 WL 264338, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2020) (federal court lacks authority to issue writ of 

mandamus to compel CDCR or any of its employees to take particular actions because they are 

state rather than federal actors); Workman v. Mitchell, 502 F.2d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The 

Federal Declaratory Judgment Act does not establish a new basis for jurisdiction in the federal 

court; it merely establishes a new remedy, available in cases in which jurisdiction otherwise 

exists. The question, therefore, is whether the mandamus statute provides a jurisdictional basis for 

the declaratory relief plaintiffs seek.”). Nonetheless, as explained below, Plaintiff’s claim does 

not warrant mandamus because it is not clear and certain. 

B. Clear and Certain Claim

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy “appropriate only when the plaintiff’s claim is 

clear and certain . . .” Nova Stylings, Inc. v. Ladd, 695 F.2d 1179, 1180 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations 

omitted); see also Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986). Here, it is neither clear 

nor certain that Plaintiff’s counselor received his request and denied it. Although Plaintiff 

attached an “Inmate Request for Interview” form, dated May 30, 2024 (ECF No. 157 at 4), the 

form does not indicate that it was submitted and received by his counselor. Indeed, the 

“disposition” portion of the form is blank. (Id.) 

However, even if Plaintiff submitted the form on May 30, 2024, he has not demonstrated 

that the counselor denied the request, and, if so, there is no explanation as to why it was denied. 

See Cortinas v. Huerta, et al., No. 117CV00130AWIGSAPC, 2019 WL 6050833, at *4 (E.D. Cal. 

Nov. 15, 2019) (denying Plaintiff’s motion to compel where “Plaintiff has not described his 

efforts to request and access these files through an Olson review or a subpoena duces tecum, nor 

has he explained why [] CDCR denied his request.”); Singleton v. Hedgepath, No. 1:08-CV00095-AWI, 2011 WL 1806515, at *8 (E.D. Cal. May 10, 2011) (denying a motion to compel 

where “Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that he requested an Olson review or otherwise 

followed proper prison procedure to request access to his medical records.”). Rather it appears 

that Plaintiff decided to file this motion thirteen days later instead of waiting for a response from 

his Counselor. (ECF No. 54 at 1:20-23 [“Plaintiff submitted an Inmate Request for Interview 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 164 Filed 07/23/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

form on [] May [30,] 2024 . . .”]; ECF No. 54 at 5 [proof of service dated June 12, 2023]). 

Further, in his reply, Plaintiff submits that he “spoke with the Counselor about a week after he 

sent out this motion and asked the Counselor about the Olson review and discussed the GA-22 

request for interview form” who stated “he is working on it.” (ECF No. 163 at 2.) Even if 

Plaintiff has yet to receive an Olson review, such circumstance does not constitute a “clear and 

certain claim” worthy of a writ of mandamus. 

Likewise, Plaintiff’s complaints of timeliness are improper. Plaintiff seeks to review his 

central file for documents related to an alleged event that occurred over four years ago. (ECF No. 

54 at 3:5-9 [“The C-File contains . . . documents that concern this case and the [] May [11], 2020 

incident.”]). Plaintiff’s delay in conducting his own, timely investigation does not present a “clear 

and certain claim” worthy of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of 

mandamus must be denied. 

III.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a writ of 

mandamus, filed on June 17, 2024 (ECF No. 157) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2024 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 164 Filed 07/23/24 Page 4 of 4