Dews v. Brown et al

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING Petition for Writ of Mandamus 20 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/27/12: Petition is DENIED with prejudice. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
CLARENCE LEON DEWS,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00278-AWI-SKO PC

8
Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

9
v.
10

(Doc. 20)
EDMUND G. BROWN, et al.,

11
Defendants.
12
/
13
14

Plaintiff Clarence Leon Dews, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action

15

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 21, 2012. On November 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed what

16

appears to be a petition for a writ of mandamus requiring prison officials at Kern Valley State Prison

17

to assign his cellmate, inmate Drume, as his caretaker.

18

The All Writs Act provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of

19

Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in the aid of their respective jurisdictions and

20

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). While a writ of mandamus may

21

be issued under the All Writs Act, “[m]andamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for

22

really extraordinary causes.’” Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting

23

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 2586 (2004)).

24

Plaintiff’s attempt to seek relief via a petition for writ of mandamus is misplaced. In addition

25

to jurisdictional issues arising from Plaintiff’s desire for a writ directed at state prison officials, see

26

Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380, 124 S.Ct. at 2586 (section 1651(a) codified the common-law writ of

27

mandamus against a lower court); Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Washington, 925

28

F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (no jurisdiction to issue writ to a state court), Plaintiff cannot
1

1

demonstrate (1) the absence of any other adequate means to attain relief and (2) a clear and

2

indisputable right to the issuance of the writ, Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81, 124 S.Ct. at 2587.

3

Plaintiff is challenging his conditions of confinement at Kern Valley State Prison in this civil

4

rights action. At this juncture, he has not yet stated a cognizable claim for relief, but assuming he

5

will be able to do so in a second amended complaint, Plaintiff may be entitled to damages or,

6

depending on the nature of his legal claims, equitable relief.1 In no event is Plaintiff entitled to the

7

issuance of a writ of mandamus.

8

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s petition is HEREBY ORDERED DENIED, with prejudice.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

Dated:
0m8i78

November 27, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend on November 19, 2012. 28 U.S.C. §
1915A. (Doc. 19.)

2