Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00254-3/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

KELLY COCHRAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-CV-00254 OWW LJO P

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDATE (Doc. 12)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF A THIRTYDAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY

WITH COURT’S ORDER OF MARCH 31,

2006 (Doc. 8)

Plaintiff Kelly Cochran (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 24, 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 1, 2.) The application was incomplete and was not

accompanied by a certified copy of plaintiff’s trust account statement for the six-month period

immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Therefore, on March 31, 2006, the Magistrate

Judge ordered plaintiff to file a new application or pay the $250.00 filing fee. (Doc. 8.) On April 18,

2006, plaintiff filed another incomplete application and on April 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a petition

for writ of mandate. (Docs. 11, 12.) 

In his petition, plaintiff seeks an order declaring prison officials’ failure to complete his in

forma pauperis application and provide a trust account statement a violation of his right to due

process, and requiring prison officials to provide all necessary information requested to ensure that

inmates have access to the courts.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, district courts 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

Case 1:06-cv-00254-OWW-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 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

 Plaintiff’s assertion in his petition that the forms were returned to him blank does not necessarily mean that 1

the application is not going to be processed. In the Court’s experience, the form is completed by staff and mailed

directly to the Court. It is not returned to plaintiff for mailing to the Court. Again, plaintiff’s counselor is requested

to seek the status of plaintiff’s application and inform plaintiff if he needs to take any further action. 

2

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” “Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy . . . [and] is

appropriately issued only when (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the defendant

official’s duty to act is ministerial, 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 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal

citations and quotations omitted).

The Court has no jurisdiction over state officials. 28 U.S.C. § 1651; see also Demos v.

United States Dist. Court for E. Dist. Of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991). Therefore,

plaintiff’s petition seeking orders directed at prison officials must be denied.

By this order, plaintiff shall be provided with thirty additional days within which to comply

with the Magistrate’s order of March 31, 2006. In the Court’s experience, each prison has a

procedure for submitting applications to proceed in forma pauperis. Although it may take some time

for the prison to complete the form and send it to the court, utter noncompliance by prison officials

in this area is not a problem this Court has encountered before. Plaintiff shall show this order to his

correctional counselor, request further instruction, and comply with whatever instructions are given.

In the event that plaintiff’s application is currently pending with the trust account office, it is

requested that plaintiff’s counselor seek the status and inform plaintiff of the status.

1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s petition for writ of mandate, filed April 28, 2006, is DENIED;

2. Plaintiff is granted an extension of thirty (30) days from the date of service of this

order within which to comply with the Magistrate’s order of March 31, 2006; and

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00254-OWW-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 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

3. Plaintiff shall show a copy of this order to his correctional counselor, request

assistance with compliance, and follow whatever instructions are given.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 24, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00254-OWW-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/25/06 Page 3 of 3