* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### November 21, 2005

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LINDY RAY SOCKEY, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TWYLA MASON GRAY; C. WESLEY LANE, II; DEIDRE A. LUJAN, Assistant District Attorney; DEREK CHANCE, Assistant District Attorney; DAVID STEINER, Police Officer; B. CARTER, Police Officer; LT. BULL, #546 Oklahoma City Police Dept.; BRANDON BENSON, Police Officer; JOHN GRAHAM, Sgt. OKC Police Dept.; LT. LOONEY, Shift Supervisor, OKC Police Dept.; BRUCE HOWARD, Deputy Warden, JEHCC Respondents - Appellees. No. 05-6125 (D.C. No. 04-CV-1196-F) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges. **Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. - 2 - Petitioner-Appellant Lindy Ray Sockey, an inmate ap pearing pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of relief on hi s petition for writ of mandamus. Mr. Sockey named various state and local officials involved with his arrest, prosecution, conviction and confinement on drunk dr iving offenses. His theory is that the various officials lacked jurisdiction because he is Native American and the offenses occurred in Indian Country. R. Doc. 1 at 1, 6-9. He sought release from state custody and vacatur of two underlying st ate convictions for driving under the influence on the grounds that those who arrested and convicted him lacked jurisdiction. The district court, upon reports and recommendation s of the magistrate judge: (1) dismissed the petition against Defendants-Appellees Gray, Lane, Chance, Lujan and Howard for failure to state a cla im pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); (2) summarily dismissed the petition agai nst Defendant-Appellee Lt. Looney for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); and (3) denied mandamus relief against Defendants-Appellees Graham, Benson, Bull, Carter and Steiner. R. Docs. 62-65. The magistrat e judge reasoned that mandamus lies only against federal employees, offic ers or agencies, and that the federal court lacks jurisdiction for what would amo unt to appellate review of state- 3 -

court convictions. The magistrate judge declined t o convert the mandamus petition to a habeas petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be cause Mr. Sockey opposed such a conversion. The district court denied relief on jurisdictional grounds and we review de novo. Marquez-Ramos v. Reno , 69 F.3d 477, 478 n.3 and 479 (10th Cir. 1995). We affirm for substantially the same reasons as dis cussed by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 grants district courts “original j urisdiction 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 plaint iff.” (emphasis added). Federal courts are without jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus against state and local officials. See Olson v. `Hart , 965 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir. 1992); Van Sickle v. Holloway , 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986). Moreov er, federal jurisdiction does not extend to appellate review of state court decisions. Anderson v. Colorado , 793 F.2d 262, 263 (10th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge