Bryant v. Gallagher et al
Filing
171
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Writ of Mandate 147 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/10/14. (Verduzco, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
KEVIN DARNELL BRYANT,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
v.
GALLAGHER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:11-cv-00446-LJO-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
WRIT OF MANDATE
(ECF No. 147)
Plaintiff Kevin Darnell Bryant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
19
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first
20
amended complaint, filed on July 5, 2011, against Defendant Romero for deliberate indifference to
21
serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and against Defendants Gallagher and
22
Romero for conspiracy, retaliation in violation of the Eighth Amendment and failure to protect in
23
violation of the Eighth Amendment.
24
On August 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandate seeking an order directing
25
Warden Dave Davey to order his officer, D. Hicks, to return original pages torn out of Plaintiff’s
26
litigation manual during a February 2014 cell search at California State Prison, Corcoran. Plaintiff
27
states that the pages contain information regarding several dozen witnesses, expert witnesses and
28
others.
1
1
The All Writs Act provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of
2
Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in the aid of their respective jurisdictions and
3
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). While a writ of mandamus may
4
be issued under the All Writs Act, “[m]andamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for
5
really extraordinary causes.’” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
6
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 2586 (2004)).
7
Plaintiff’s attempt to seek relief via a petition for writ of mandamus is misplaced. In addition
8
to jurisdictional issues arising from Plaintiff’s desire for a federal writ directed at state prison officials,
9
see Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380, 124 S.Ct. at 2586 (section 1651(a) codified the common-law writ of
10
mandamus against a lower court); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Washington, 925
11
F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (no jurisdiction to issue writ to a state court), Plaintiff cannot
12
demonstrate (1) the absence of any other adequate means to attain relief and (2) a clear and
13
indisputable right to the issuance of the writ, Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. at 2587.
14
In this action, Plaintiff is challenging his conditions of confinement at Kern Valley State
15
Prison, not California State Prison, Corcoran. If Plaintiff prevails, he may be entitled to damages, but
16
in no event is Plaintiff entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s petition
17
is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED with prejudice.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
November 10, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?