IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHN KENNEDY FRENCH, §

PETITIONER, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-739-C-BK

§

JUDGE D. COFFEY, §

RESPONDENT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se action was referred to the 

United States magistrate judge for case management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and 

applicable law, this action should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous 

and for failure to state a claim.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 25, 2022, Petitioner John Kennedy French, a Texas resident and selfproclaimed sovereign citizen, filed a letter seeking “a writ of mandamus” against Judge D. 

Coffey of County Criminal Court No. 8, Tarrant County, Texas. Doc. 3 at 1. It appears that 

French seeks to compel the state judge to vacate a January 24, 2022 order in Case No. 1707453, 

concerning violations of his conditions of community supervision. See Doc. 3-1 at 19-20

(correspondence between the Tarrant County Community Supervision and Corrections 

Department and French). The Clerk of the Court docketed the pleading as a petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

Case 3:22-cv-00739-C-BK Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 49
Page 2 of 4

Upon review, however, French’s pleading, construed as a petition for writ of mandamus,

lacks any legal basis. Therefore, it should be dismissed. 

II. ANALYSIS

Because French did not pay the filing fee, the Court presumes he seeks leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis. As such, his petition for writ of mandamus is subject to screening under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Those statutes provide for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the 

Court finds that it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A 

complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. 

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law when it is 

premised “on an indisputably meritless legal theory,” Id. at 327, and fails to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less 

stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(e)

(“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under the most liberal construction, 

however, French’s construed petition for writ of mandamus is frivolous and fails to state a claim.

Federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus against state officers in the 

performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought. See Moye v. Clerk, 

DeKalb County Sup. Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973) (per curiam). Here, 

French’s petition for writ of mandamus can be only construed to seek mandamus relief against 

the Judge Coffey, to-wit, compelling him to vacate an order relating to French’s conditions of 

Case 3:22-cv-00739-C-BK Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 50
Page 3 of 4

supervised release. Accordingly, French’s request for mandamus relief lacks merit and should 

be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See Santee v. Quinlan, 

115 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming dismissal of mandamus petition as frivolous 

because federal courts lack power to mandamus state officials in performance of their duties). 

III. LEAVE TO AMEND

Generally “a pro se litigant should be offered an opportunity to amend his complaint 

before it is dismissed.” Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 767-68 (5th Cir. 2009). However, the 

Court is not required to grant leave to amend “if the plaintiff has already pleaded his ‘best case.’” 

Id. For the reasons outlined here, French’s claim is fatally infirm. Under these circumstances, 

granting leave to amend would be futile and cause needless delay.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, French’s construed petition for writ of mandamus should be 

summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

SO RECOMMENDED on April 14, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-00739-C-BK Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 51
Page 4 of 4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time 

to file objections to 14 days). 

Case 3:22-cv-00739-C-BK Document 5 Filed 04/14/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 52