Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05813/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05813-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD L. SMITH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:04-CV-5813 OWW WMW

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS 

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se on a petition for writ of mandamus. In

this petition, Petitioner seeks an order compelling the California Department of Corrections

to release him immediately. 

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. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ, and is issued only when (1) the

Case 1:04-cv-05813-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 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 2

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 (9 Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). th

Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to

perform a duty; federal courts are without the power to issue mandamus to direct state courts

or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties. A petition for mandamus to

compel a state court to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. 

Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-72 (9 Cir.) (imposing no filing in forma th

pauperis order), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1082 (1991); Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681

(9 Cir. 1966) (attorney contested disbarment and sought reinstatement); Dunlap v. Corbin, th

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 (9 Cir. 1982). th

In this case Petitioner seeks an order from this court compelling a California state

government authority to perform a particular action. Under the authorities set forth above,

this court lacks jurisdiction to do so. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1) This petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction;

2) The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment for Respondent and to close this

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05813-OWW -WMW Document 3 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2