Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08200/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-08200-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT TREVINO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 19-cv-08200-PJH 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Re: Dkt. No. 4 

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. 

DISCUSSION 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners 

seek redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and 

dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief 

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. 

Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement 

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not 

necessary; the statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim 

is and the grounds upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) 

(citations omitted). Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed 

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds’ of his 'entitle[ment] 

Case 4:19-cv-08200-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

to relief' requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). A complaint must proffer "enough facts to state 

a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 570. The United States Supreme 

Court has recently explained the “plausible on its face” standard of Twombly: “While legal 

conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual 

allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their 

veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 

LEGAL CLAIMS 

Plaintiff seeks a writ of mandamus against a state court. 

Federal 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. A petition 

for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some 

action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 

1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (imposing no filing in forma pauperis order); Clark v. Washington, 

366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 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 (9th Cir. 1982); Newton v. Poindexter, 578 F. Supp. 277, 279 (C.D. Cal. 

1984) (§ 1361 has no application to state officers or employees); see also In re Campbell, 

264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would 

order state trial court to give petitioner access to certain trial transcripts which he sought 

in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition; federal court may not, as a general 

rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court 

litigation). 

Plaintiff seeks an order for this court to compel the Monterey County Superior 

Case 4:19-cv-08200-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 3
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Court to grant mandamus relief in a state case regarding a file from the District Attorney’s 

Office. Plaintiff states that his state court writ of mandamus was converted into a state 

habeas case that was also denied by the California Court of Appeal and California 

Supreme Court. As noted above a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state 

court to take some action is frivolous. Therefore, this case is dismissed. Because no 

amount of amendment would cure the deficiencies in this action the case is dismissed 

without leave to amend. 

CONCLUSION 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED.

2. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. The clerk shall close this

case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 4, 2020 

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton 

Case 4:19-cv-08200-PJH Document 5 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 3