Smith v. Warden CSP-Corcoran, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER Dismissing Petition for Writ of Mandamus, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 5/4/13. CASE CLOSED. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
JAMES E. SMITH,
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
WARDEN CSP-CORCORAN, et al.,
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
________________________________)

1:13-cv-00028 MJS
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(Doc. 1)

18
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of mandamus
19
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Petitioner has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction under
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
21
On January 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court.
22
(Pet., ECF No. 1.) On March 29, 2013, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the
23
petition should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Order, ECF No. 4.) On April 25, 2013,
24
Petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause.
25
A review of the petition reveals that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action. Under
26
28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their respective jurisdictions. .
27
.” The district court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to issue writs of
28
U.S. District Court
E. D. California

-1-

1

mandamus. That jurisdiction is limited, however, to writs of mandamus to “compel an officer

2

or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty. . .” 28 U.S.C. §

3

1361. It is also well-established that, with very few exceptions specifically outlined by

4

Congress, the federal court cannot issue a writ of mandamus commanding action by a state

5

or its agencies. See e.g. Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160

6

(9th Cir. 1991). Where the federal court does have jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ

7

of mandamus, such a writ may not issue unless it is to enforce an established right by

8

compelling the performance of a corresponding non-discretionary ministerial act. See Finley

9

v. Chandler, 377 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1967).

10

In this case, Petitioner appears to seek mandamus relief directed to a state agency

11

compelling action by the state agency. Specifically, Petitioner seeks to compel wardens of

12

California State Prisons Corcoran and Los Angeles County to return money to Petitioner that

13

he had been awarded in a prior state judgment. Because Petitioner does not seek an order

14

compelling action on the part of the United States or any federal agency, this Court lacks

15

jurisdiction. Petitioner, in his objections to the order to show cause, provides no reason to

16

question the Court's decision to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus is therefore DENIED. The Clerk of Court is

17
18

DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
ci4d6

May 4, 2013

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
U.S. District Court
E. D. California

-2-