Turner v. California Forensic Medical Group et al

Filing 66

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 5/2/2012 RECOMMENDING that plaintiff's 63 motion for writ of mandamus be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

9
10
11

No. CIV S-09-3040-GEB-CMK-P

Plaintiff,
vs.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL
GROUP, et al.,

12
Defendants.
13
14
15
16

/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a writ of mandamus.
This action proceeds on plaintiff’s amended complaint, raising claims of

17

excessive force, denial of medical treatment, and denial of due process while he was confined in

18

the Yolo County Jail. In his current motion, plaintiff alleges employees at Corcoran State Prison,

19

where he is now incarcerated, are interfering in his ability prosecute this case. He is requesting

20

the court issue a writ of mandamus to stop this interference.

21

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), all federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their

22

respective jurisdictions . . . .” In addition, the district court has original jurisdiction under 28

23

U.S.C. § 1361 to issue writs of mandamus. That jurisdiction is limited, however, to writs of

24

mandamus to “compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to

25

perform a duty . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). It is also well-established that, with

26

very few exceptions specifically outlined by Congress, the federal court cannot issue a writ of
1

1

mandamus commanding action by a state or its agencies. See e.g. Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for

2

Eastern Dist. of Wash., 925 F.2d 1160 (9th Cir. 1991). Where the federal court does have

3

jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of mandamus, such a writ may not issue unless it is to

4

enforce an established right by compelling the performance of a corresponding non-discretionary

5

ministerial act. See Finley v. Chandler, 377 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1967).

6

Plaintiff is requesting this court to issue an order commanding State employees to

7

act, or not act, in a certain manner. Such a request is outside this court’s power. The individuals

8

plaintiff contends are interfering with his ability to prosecute this case are not employees of the

9

United States, but of California. In addition, these individuals are not parties to this action. This

10

court does not, therefore, have to power to command these individuals. See also Zenith Radio

11

Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969).

12
13

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for a
writ of mandamus (Doc. 63) be denied.

14

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

15

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

16

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

17

objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of

18

objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal.

19

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

20
21
22
23

DATED: May 2, 2012
______________________________________
CRAIG M. KELLISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
2