Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02325/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02325-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marlon Roberson
Petitioner
Sacramento County Superior Court
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARLON ROBERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH

ORDER

Petitioner Marlon Roberson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner has 

filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 5.)

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

Case 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 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

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

Petitioner objects to the Findings and Recommendations and argues that “a writ of 

mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal to compel the performance of an act 

which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to compel 

the admission of a party to the use and enjoinment of a right to which the party is entitled and 

from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal.” (ECF No. 5 at 4.) 

However, the California Superior Court is not an “inferior tribunal” in relation to this Court under 

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1085, and, as the magistrate judge correctly notes, this Court “lacks 

jurisdiction to compel state courts to comply with” Petitioner’s requests. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 5, 2019, are adopted in full; 

2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED; and

3. This case is closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH Document 6 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2