Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00494/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00494-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Da Silva
Respondent
Federal Bureau of Investigations
Respondent
Kamala D. Harris
Respondent
Seavon Pierce
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEAVON PIERCE,

Petitioner,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, et. al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner confined at Kern Valley State Prison and proceeding pro se

with a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1361. In the 

petition, Petitioner claims that the Riverside County Superior Court refuses to provide access to 

court records, which allegedly reveal illegal acts of the Riverside District Attorney’s Office, and 

that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is illegally 

confiscating mail. Petitioner claims that Respondents Harris and Da Silva have direct knowledge 

of these facts, but have failed to respond and act upon their duties. (ECF No. 1 at 2).1

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. 

 

1

Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page.

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/04/16 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

The Ninth Circuit has held:

Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the 

United States to perform a duty if (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear 

and certain; (2) the duty of the officer is ministerial and so plainly 

prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate 

remedy is available.

Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation and citations omitted).

The Supreme Court has “repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary 

remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations,” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas 

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988), and “mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 will issue only to 

compel the performance of ‘a clear nondiscretionary duty.’” Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben, 488 

U.S. 105, 121 (1988) (quoting Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)).

Here, Petitioner names as respondents Kamala D. Harris, the California Attorney 

General, and Anthony Da Silva, who is not identified as a federal officer or employee and

appears to be a state employee with the Attorney General’s Office.2 Mandamus relief is not 

available with respect to Respondents Harris and Da Silva in this case because they are not 

officers, employees, or agencies of the United States. Petitioner also names the Federal Bureau 

of Investigations (“FBI”) as a respondent, but fails to show that the FBI owes Petitioner a clear 

nondiscretionary duty to provide access to state court records or take action regarding the 

CDCR’s alleged confiscation of mail. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 

mandamus be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 

Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

fourteen (14) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned District Judge

will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner

 

2 The petition refers to Respondents as “attorney generals.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). 

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/04/16 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

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 3, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00494-LJO-EPG Document 12 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 3