Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04848/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-04848-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Plaintiff has also filed in this Court a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus challenging the execution of his sentence. See

Courtois v. Lockyer, Case No. C 06-2221 CW (PR). Because Plaintiff

is confined at a penitentiary in Kings County, which lies within the

venue of the Eastern District of California, his habeas action has

been transferred to the Eastern District. See Mar. 15, 2007 Order of

Transfer in Case No. C 06-2221 CW (PR).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL COURTOIS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________

PAUL CRAIG COURTOIS, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

/

No. C 06-2251 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

No. C 06-4848 CW (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Paul Craig Courtois is a prisoner of the State of

California who is incarcerated at Corcoran State Prison. He has

filed two pro se petitions for a writ of mandamus. He has also

filed applications for in forma pauperis status.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff contends that a writ of mandamus is the proper

vehicle by which to challenge the failure by the state parole

board to release him from custody.1 He claims that he is being

held beyond what he believes is his maximum release date.

Case 4:06-cv-04848-CW Document 4 Filed 04/20/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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). The Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint

"is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted," or "seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b). 

However, pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

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

1990).

II. WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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. 

However, this Court has no authority to take the actions

requested by Plaintiff by way of a writ of mandamus. Federal

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 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.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1082

(1991); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir.

2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would order

Case 4:06-cv-04848-CW Document 4 Filed 04/20/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

state trial court to give plaintiff access to certain trial

transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state postconviction 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's mandamus

remedy, if any, lies in state court.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, both actions are DISMISSED for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Plaintiff's applications for in forma pauperis status are DENIED,

and no filing fee is due in either case. All pending motions in

both cases are TERMINATED. The Court certifies that any appeal

is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The Clerk

of the Court shall issue judgments and close both files.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 4/20/07 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-04848-CW Document 4 Filed 04/20/07 Page 3 of 3