UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LEONARD MOORE,

Petitioner,

Civil No: 09-CV-13433

HON. AVERN COHN

v.

MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD,

Respondent.

___________________________/

ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL

I. Introduction

Petitioner Leonard Moore has filed a pro se petition for mandamus. Petitioner is

currently incarcerated at Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility in Baraga, Michigan. 

Petitioner asks the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to the Michigan Parole Board

ordering his immediate release. For the reasons that follow, the petition will be

dismissed and all pending motions will be denied as moot.

II. Discussion

“[F]ederal courts may not issue writs of mandamus to compel state officers to act

in accordance with state law.” Hoffman v. Stump, 1998 WL 869972, *6 (6th Cir. Dec. 2,

1998), citing Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). See

also Parker v. Phillips, 27 Fed. Appx. 491, 494 (6th Cir. 2001) (“Federal courts . . . have

no authority to issue a writ of mandamus directing a state court or its judicial officers in

the performance of their duties”). 

2:09-cv-13433-AC-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 17
1

Petitioner is a frequent litigator. A review of Court records shows that he has

filed in excess of fifty complaints and/or petitions over a nineteen year period and has

been barred from filing any additional in forma pauperis civil rights complaints because

he is a “three striker” under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g). 

2

Here, plaintiff seeks an order compelling the Michigan Parole Board to release

him. Such a request is clearly outside of the Court’s mandamus authority. The petition

must therefore be dismissed.

Furthermore, although the appropriate avenue for a petitioner challenging the

constitutionality of a state court conviction is to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. §2254, see Haggard v. State of Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th

Cir. 1970), the Court declines to construe the petition for mandamus as seeking habeas

corpus relief. First, Petitioner does not allege that his claims are exhausted and it is not

clear whether they are. Second, Petitioner has a habeas petitions pending which

includes the issue set forth in the writ of mandamus. Moore v. Caruso, No: 09-CV13100 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 6, 2009) (Murphy, J.).1

 

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the petition for mandamus is

DISMISSED. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, “Motion for

Preliminary Injunction and TRO Order,” “Motion for Order for U.S. Marshall to Serve

Petitioner of Mandamus,” and “Motion to Appoint Counsel” are DENIED AS MOOT. 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

Dated: September 09, 2009 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cv-13433-AC-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 18
09-13433 Moore v. MI Parole Board

Order of Summary Dismissal

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Leonard Moore 

185481, Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility, 301 Wadaga Road, Baraga, MI 49908 

on this date, September 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-13433-AC-PJK Doc # 6 Filed 09/09/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 19