Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00494/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00494-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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 06cv494

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE JAMES WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv494 BTM (POR)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE SUPERIOR

COURT, et al.,

Respondents.

On March 7, 2006, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition under the All Writs

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, for a writ of mandamus to: (1) compel Respondents to file Petitioner’s

pleadings and adjudicate them; (2) direct Respondents to enforce or comply with lawful

issued court orders; and (3) assist Petitioner in making a citizen’s arrest. Petitioner appears

to be a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Southwest Detention Center. While the exact

nature of his allegations is not clear, the Court can determine that Petitioner requests this

Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Respondents, who include: (1) the California State

Superior Court and its clerk; (2) the California State Supreme Court and its clerk; (3) the

California State Riverside County Detention Center; and (4) the District Attorney’s Office of

Riverside County, Murietta Division. Petitioner has not prepaid the filing fee mandated by

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence a civil action; nor has he filed a motion to proceed in

forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the following reasons, Petitioner’s

complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Case 3:06-cv-00494-BTM-POR Document 4 Filed 12/01/06 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

2 06cv494

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

At the time of Petitioner’s filing, all parties instituting any civil action, suit or proceeding

in a district court of the United States, other than a writ of habeas corpus, were required to

pay a filing fee of $250. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (required fee increased to $350 in April 2006).

An action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay only if the party is granted leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See Rodriguez v. Cook,

169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999). Petitioner has not prepaid the $250 civil filing fee

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence this action, nor has he filed a motion to

proceed IFP in this matter. While this Court would normally provide Petitioner an opportunity

to cure this deficiency in entering an order of dismissal, Petitioner’s complaint suffers from

additional defects which cannot be cured.

II. Failure to State a Claim

Petitioner asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directed to courts, detention

facilities, and/or officials of the State of California. This Court is without jurisdiction to issue

such a writ. The All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides: “The Supreme Court and all

courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of

their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Thus, this

Court’s jurisdiction to issue such writs is limited to only those which are in aid of its

jurisdiction. A writ of mandamus requiring a state court to file pleadings or directing state

prison officials to comply with orders issued in a state proceeding would not be in aid of this

Court’s jurisdiction. As numerous federal courts have recognized, “[f]ederal district courts

are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other

state officials in the performance of their duties.” Shaheed v. Supreme Court, No. C 06-5009

JSW (PR), 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66458 (Aug. 31, 2006 N.D. Cal.); accord Demos v. U.S.

District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678,

681 (9th Cir. 1966); Sully v. Lungren, 842 F. Supp. 1230, 1232 (N.D. Cal. 1994); Dunlap v.

Corbin, 532 F. Supp. 183, 187 (D. Ariz. 1981). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to state a claim

upon which this Court may grant relief.

Case 3:06-cv-00494-BTM-POR Document 4 Filed 12/01/06 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 06cv494

III. Improper Venue

Finally, to the extent that Petitioner’s claims would be cognizable in a properly filed

petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and Petitioner wishes to file such a new action, the Court

cautions that venue in this district is not proper. “A civil action wherein jurisdiction is not

founded solely on diversity of citizenship may, except as otherwise provided by law, be

brought only in (1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in

the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions

giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the

action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no

district in which the action may otherwise be brought.” 28 USCS § 1391(b). Petitioner’s

claims are brought against courts and officials that presumedly reside in Riverside County,

which is located in the Central District of California. In addition, as the Petitioner is resident

in a Riverside County detention facility, the Court presumes that the actions that Petitioner

complains of also took place in Riverside County. Petitioner has not alleged that any claims

arose in San Diego or Imperial Counties or that any Respondent resides within these

counties. Accordingly, venue is not proper in the Southern District of California.

IV. Conclusion

Since Petitioner’s complaint suffers from incurable defects, this Court will not grant

Petitioner the opportunity to reopen this action upon payment of the required filing fee or filing

of a proper motion to proceed IFP. Rather, this Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s cause of

action against all Respondents without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 1, 2006

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00494-BTM-POR Document 4 Filed 12/01/06 Page 3 of 3