Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02238/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02238-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Calvin Neuendorf, II, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2238-PHX-RCB (DKD)

ORDER

On October 15, 2010, Petitioner John Calvin Neuendorf, II, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a pro se “Writ of Mandamus” (Doc. 1), which

the Court construed as a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus (Petition) by Order filed October

28, 2010 (Doc. 3). The Court’s Order also gave Petitioner 30 days from the filing date of the

Order to pay the $350.00 filing fee or to file a completed Application to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis and a certified six-month trust account statement. On November 4, 2010, Petitioner

filed an Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) and an Inmate Account

Statement (Doc. 5). 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) will be granted.

Petitioner must pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The Court

will not assess an initial partial filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). The statutory fee will be

collected monthly in payments of 20% of the previous month’s income each time the amount

Case 2:10-cv-02238-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 01/20/11 Page 1 of 5
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 -

in the account exceeds $10.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Court will enter a separate

Order requiring the appropriate government agency to collect and forward the fees according

to the statutory formula. 

II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against

a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a prisoner has raised

claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may

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

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). 

A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does not

demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009).

“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory

statements, do not suffice.” Id.

“[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for

relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

experience and common sense.” Id. at 1950. Thus, although a prisoner’s specific factual

allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there

are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 1951.

But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts

must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, No. 07-17265, 2010 WL

2947323, at *3 (9th Cir. Jul. 29, 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se prisoner] ‘must be

Case 2:10-cv-02238-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 01/20/11 Page 2 of 5
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 -

held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)).

If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other facts,

a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal of the

action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court

should not, however, advise the litigant how to cure the defects. This type of advice “would

undermine district judges’ role as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225,

231 (2004); see also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1131 n.13 (declining to decide whether the court was

required to inform a litigant of deficiencies). The Petition (Doc. 1) will be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, without leave to amend because the

defects cannot be corrected.

III. Petition

Named as Respondent in the Petition is the State of Arizona. In his Petition, Petitioner

requests that this Court “pardon all crimes pertaining to CR 2009-167757-001 or dismiss all

charges Counts 1, 2, and 3 with prejudice and launch an investigation pertaining to the safety

of myself and my family.” Petitioner alleges that this is necessary because he has a “device”

in his head that was “installed in there from a[] life threatening surgery.” Petitioner further

alleges that “some sort of communication device (with visual effects) was implanted in [his]

head” and that someone “torments [him] constantly with electromagnetic waves (high

frequency).”

IV. Dismissal of Petition and Action

Writs of mandamus have been abolished in federal practice pursuant to Rule 81(b),

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, actions in the nature of mandamus to compel

United States officials to perform duties are within the jurisdiction of the United States courts

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which states that:

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. 

Case 2:10-cv-02238-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 01/20/11 Page 3 of 5
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 -

In the instant case, Petitioner has not identified a duty owed to him by an officer or

employee of the United States or any agency thereof. Instead, he appears to be asking this

Court to pardon state-court crimes or dismiss state-court criminal charges. However, cases

clearly hold that federal courts have no authority 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, 681-82 (9th Cir. 1966); Rothstein v. Montana State Supreme Court, 637 F. Supp.

177, 179 (D. Mont. 1986); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F. Supp. 183, 187 (D. Ariz. 1981), aff'd,

673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2nd Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, the instant proceeding is not within the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1361, and relief

by way of a writ of mandamus is not available to the Petitioner in this instance. Therefore,

the Court will dismiss the Petition and this action for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.

IT IS ORDERED: 

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 4) is granted.

(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency,

Petitioner must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is not assessed an initial partial filing fee.

(3) The Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed for failure to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the

dismissal for failure to state a claim may counts as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:10-cv-02238-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 01/20/11 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

(5) The docket shall reflect that the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a)(3) and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3)(A), that any appeal of this

decision would not be taken in good faith.

DATED this 19th day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02238-RCB--DKD Document 6 Filed 01/20/11 Page 5 of 5