Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110914_0012824.ECA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:27:11+00:00

Document:
FindACase | David Upton v. andre Birotte Jr.
David Upton v. andre Birotte Jr.
ANDRE BIROTTE JR., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, RESPONDENT.
Petitioner, who also refers to himself as plaintiff, is proceeding without counsel and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus ("Petition") and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.*fn1 Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Attorney for the Central District of California to "present criminal charges against Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief District Judge Audrey B. Collins, Chief Magistrate Judge Stephen J. Hillman, and Magistrate Judge Patrick J. Walsh, to a federal grand jury, to procure indictment(s) for prosecution of crimes committed against Plaintiff David Upton." (Petition at 9.) For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and that petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot. In short, the petition is not only frivolous, but also fails to satisfy the legal requirements for mandamus relief.
Petitioner has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Although petitioner's application and declaration make the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 1915(2), the undersigned recommends that the application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot because, as discussed below, the undersigned also recommends that the Petition be dismissed without leave to amend.
The determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not complete the inquiry. The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to section 1915(e)(2), the court shall dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is "frivolous or malicious," the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or the action seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A)-(B).
Accordingly, the petition filed in this court should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. As discussed below, the petition is also frivolous on the merits.
Even assuming that petitioner's claims are ripe and not frivolous, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed with prejudice because petitioner cannot satisfy the standards that govern mandamus relief. "Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy" that will only issue when "(1) the plaintiff's claim is 'clear and certain'; (2) the defendant official's duty to act is ministerial, and 'so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt'; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available." Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted). Generally, "mandamus may not be used to impinge upon an official's legitimate use of discretion." Id. at 1376. Nevertheless, mandamus may lie when an agency or official ignores or violated "statutory or regulatory standards delimiting the scope or manner in which such discretion can be exercised." Id.
Here, petitioner's claims are hardly "clear and certain." As the district court for the District of Columbia concluded, "petitioner's application to compel a criminal investigation of judges simply because he disagrees with their rulings lacks 'an arguable basis in law and fact' and, thus, is frivolous." Upton I, 2011 WL 2938134, at *1. The undersigned agrees with this assessment, which results in petitioner's failure to satisfy the first requirement for mandamus relief.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1915
 § 1915
 § 1915
 v. 
 § 1915
 v.