(HC) Chatman v. The State of California

Filing 5

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss #1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/4/2021. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R due within Thirty Days.(Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICKEY LEE CHATMAN, JR.,
Petitioner,

12
13
14

v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondent.

15
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:21-cv-00802-JLT (HC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO
DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
[THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE]

On May 17, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

18

1361. For the following reasons, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED WITH

19

PREJUDICE.

20
21

DISCUSSION
The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all

22

courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their

23

respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The federal mandamus

24

statute set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

25

any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any

26

agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is only

27

available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty if (1) the petitioner’s claim is

28

clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer “is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
1

1

doubt,” Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v.

2

Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir.1970)); and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers’

3

Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982).

4

Petitioner outlines the previous filings of petitions for writ of habeas corpus and petition for

5

writ of mandate that he takes issue with and discusses his disagreement with same. (See Doc. 1 at 1-

6

17.) Petitioner makes various claims related to, among other things, alleged new evidence, witness

7

tampering and obstruction of justice, and he further argues for an evidentiary hearing. (See id.)

8

However, it appears that Petitioner is attempting to reargue previous claims, which have been

9

addressed previously. Furthermore, mandamus relief is not available because Respondent is not an

10

officer, employee or agency of the United States. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does not vest a federal

11

district court with the power to compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another state

12

official’s duties under any circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89,

13

106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform

14

their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain

15

from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-

16

72 (9th Cir.1991); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F.Supp. 1303, 1308

17

(C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies

18

in the performance of their duties); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F.Supp. 183, 187 (D.Ariz.1981) (plaintiff

19

sought order from federal court directing state court to provide speedy trial), aff’d without opinion,

20

673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir.1982).
ORDER

21
22

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case.
RECOMMENDATION

23
24
25
26

For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE as frivolous.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

27

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

28

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty
2

1

days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written

2

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the

4

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to

5

file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court.

6

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 4, 2021

_ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3