Roberts v. Humboldt County Superior Court

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Signed by Judge James Donato on 6/26/18. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBERT BARRY ROBERTS,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND

v.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-07375-JD

Docket No. 8

Defendants.

12
13
14

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. He has been
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
DISCUSSION

15
16

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

8

LEGAL CLAIMS

9

Plaintiff describes various state laws that provide certain conduct credits to prisoners. He
also discusses how the policy is supposed strengthen community based punishment. Plaintiff then

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

states that some classes of prisoners receive less benefit than others and lawsuits presenting those

12

arguments are not successful. Plaintiff does not argue that he has been adversely affected in any

13

way but seeks this Court to order other state and federal courts to change their judgments in such

14

cases.
Federal district courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state

15
16

judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties. A petition for a writ of

17

mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a

18

matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991)

19

(imposing no filing in forma pauperis order); Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir.

20

1966) (attorney contested disbarment and sought reinstatement). A federal district court also lacks

21

authority to issue a writ of mandamus to another district court. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy

22

Court, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C.

23

1986)).

24

Pursuant to the legal standards set forth above, plaintiff may not proceed with his petition

25

for writ of mandamus. The complaint is dismissed and plaintiff will be provided one opportunity

26

to amend.

27
28
2

CONCLUSION

1
2

1.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 8) is GRANTED.

3

2.

The complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend. The amended complaint must

4

be filed within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed and must include the caption

5

and civil case number used in this order and the words AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first

6

page. Because an amended complaint completely replaces the original complaint, plaintiff must

7

include in it all the claims he wishes to present. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th

8

Cir. 1992). He may not incorporate material from the original complaint by reference. Failure to

9

amend within the designated time will result in the dismissal of this case.

10

3.

It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Court informed of any change of address by filing a separate paper with the clerk headed “Notice

12

of Change of Address,” and must comply with the Court’s orders in a timely fashion. Failure to

13

do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of

14

Civil Procedure 41(b).

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 26, 2018

17
18
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ROBERT BARRY ROBERTS,

Case No. 17-cv-07375-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7
8
9
10

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on June 26, 2018, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18
19

Robert Barry Roberts
H.C.C.F.
F33425
826 4th Street
Eureka, CA 95501

20
21

Dated: June 26, 2018

22
23
24

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4