Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02034/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02034-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Corrections Corporation of America
Respondent
Miguel Gutierrez
Petitioner
E. Pressley
Respondent

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate requiring Respondents to perform pursuant to a 

stipulation and entry of judgment entered in 1987 in a different case involving different parties –

Sample v. Borg (CAED Case No. S-85-208 LKK). He has consented to jurisdiction of a U.S. 

magistrate judge. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the extraordinary relief offered in a writ of 

mandate is warranted. His petition will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

In Sample v. Borg, a stipulation was entered in February of 1987 on behalf of the parties: 

Herbert Sample and a class of American Indian believers and practitioners of their traditional 

religion who were confined to the general prison population at Folsom Prison, plaintiffs, and R.G. 

Borg, the Warden of the California State Prison at Folsom, Daniel McCarthy, the director of the 

California State Department of Corrections, and Joseph Campoy, an individual, defendants. The 

stipulation required the defendants to formally recognize the spiritual and religious practices of 

American Indians as a religion entitled to the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 

The stipulation contained several provisions enabling the class to practice their traditional religion, 

MIGUEL GUTIERREZ,

Petitioner,

v.

E. PRESSLEY, Warden; CORRECTIONS 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA,

Respondents .

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-2034-SMS 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Doc. 1

Case 1:14-cv-02034-SMS Document 10 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 4
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

including designation of a medicine man or comparable chaplain, a traditional sweat lodge with its 

various accessories, use of a medicine pipe, and permission to wear traditional hairstyles with 

headbands and to carry medicine bags. These provisions were all subject to the standards applied 

to other religions recognized by the California Department of Corrections. 

Petitioner asserts that he is a Native American Indian Practitioner who represents a group 

of Native American Indian Practitioners who seek to practice their traditional religious rights as 

guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”),42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. It appears that he seeks an 

order enforcing the February 1987 Sample v. Borg stipulation as to all Native American inmate 

practitioners under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

housed in private prison facilities, including the facility in which he is incarcerated in McFarland, 

California. As similarly outlined in the Sample v. Borg stipulation, Plaintiff requests an order 

which establishes a medicine man as a formally recognized spiritual leader, permits weekly sweat 

lodge ceremonies with proper accessories, permits traditional hairstyles and headbands, and 

permits possession of medicine bags. Plaintiff also requests that the order permit usage of a 

medicine pipe and tobacco ties during ceremonies, to be stored when not in use. 

II. 28 U.S.C. § 1361

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, a petitioner may seek mandamus in the district court to 

compel a United States officer or agency to perform a duty owed to him. 28 U.S.C. § 1361.

Mandamus is extraordinary relief and is available only when “(1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and 

certain; (2) the duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no 

other adequate remedy is available.” Or. Natural Res. Council v. Harrell, 52 F.3d 1499, 1508 (9th 

Cir. 1995). Further, mandamus is “intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has

exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary 

duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner’s claim is neither clear nor certain. After reviewing his petition, the Court is left 

Case 1:14-cv-02034-SMS Document 10 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 4
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

with several questions as to Petitioner’s claim. It might be assumed, although not specifically 

alleged, that Petitioner alleges that he has been denied the provisions he seeks to be enforced. Due 

to the lack of specific allegations, it is not clear what harm he has suffered or if he is entitled to the 

relief requested. For example, he requests weekly sweat lodge ceremonies. The stipulation does 

not guarantee weekly sweat lodge ceremonies, but requires the provision of an area within the 

institution for construction of a sweat lodge where a request is made by American Indian believers 

and practitioners and where sufficient numbers of such individuals are incarcerated so as to justify 

the construction and regular use of a sweat lodge. The next step would be to cooperate with 

necessary parties to construct the sweat lodge and provide its requisite accessories. After that, the 

practitioners would have access for ceremonies and other permitted usage. Petitioner has not 

alleged that a request for a sweat lodge has been made at his facility, or that his facility has 

numerical sufficiency for its construction. There may be already be a sweat lodge constructed at 

the facility to which access has been impeded. There are insufficient facts alleged to understand 

what relief Petitioner seeks. 

In addition he lists himself as plaintiff, and the warden of the McFarland facility and the 

Corrections Corporation of America as defendants, but alludes to all other Native American 

practitioners under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

housed in private prison facilities. There is therefore confusion as to the scope of Plaintiff’s claim. 

B. Respondents’ Duty

The duty Petitioner alleges that is owed to him by Respondents is not so plainly prescribed 

so as to be free from doubt. Petitioner seeks to enforce a 1987 stipulation against the McFarland 

facility and the Corrections Corporation of America, who were not signatories to the stipulation. 

The stipulation bound the defendants in the Sample v. Borg matter – the warden of the State Prison 

at Folsom, the director of California Department of Corrections, and an individual. 

Thus, Respondents do not owe a clear nondiscretionary duty to Petitioner to perform under 

the stipulation.

C. Other Adequate Remedy

The strongest reason for denying the writ is probably that there exist other adequate 

Case 1:14-cv-02034-SMS Document 10 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 4
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

remedies. Petitioner has not indicated that he has exhausted his other remedies. He has not 

indicated that he has sought any remedy from his facility by means of requesting and being denied 

access to a sweat lodge, medicine man, or permission to wear a certain hairstyle or carry a 

medicine bag. It seems very possible that the facility would accommodate such requests. Further, 

if Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement, it seems that his more appropriate 

vehicle for redress lies in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on a violation of his 

First Amendment rights. Plaintiff may also have a civil cause of action under RLUIPA. 

Should Plaintiff desire to file a civil action, he should file it as a separate civil action.

Plaintiff is advised to research the law surrounding his potential claims in order to sufficiently 

plead a cognizable claim. If he desires to bring the action on behalf of other Native American 

Indian practitioners, he should clearly indicate that intent in the caption and in the allegations.

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandate is DENIED. 

The Clerk is DIRECTED to send to Petitioner a civil rights complaint form for a person in 

custody.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02034-SMS Document 10 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 4