Blank v. People of the State of California et al

Filing 9

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 01/08/2025. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY LOUIS BLANK,
Plaintiff,

8

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 24-cv-07500-JST

Defendants.

12
Plaintiff, an inmate housed at Richard J. Donovan Facility, has filed this pro se action. His

13
14

complaint (ECF No. 1) is now before the Court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

15

Plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
DISCUSSION

16
17

A.

Standard of Review

18

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

23

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d

24

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

25

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

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

27

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

28

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

1

While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

2

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

3

A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

5

B.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Complaint (ECF No. 1)
Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a document titled, “Original Writ of Preemptory

7

Mandate . . . Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Rule 8, and F.R.C.P. § 1361.” ECF

8

No. 1. Plaintiff alleges as follows in that pleading: On September 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a

9

motion with the California Supreme Court, requesting that the California Supreme Court set aside

10

his criminal judgment from Mendocino County Superior Court, release him from custody, and

11

compensate him for serving nine years on an invalid criminal judgment. The California Supreme

12

Court has not responded to Plaintiff’s motion and refuses to set a hearing on this motion. Plaintiff

13

requests that this Court issue a writ of mandate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1361,

14

compelling the California Supreme Court to either (1) set a hearing on his motion, or (2) enter

15

default judgment in his favor, declare his criminal conviction null and void, and release him from

16

custody. See generally ECF No. 1.

17

The Court DISMISSES this action because Plaintiff’s writ of mandate seeking to compel

18

the California Supreme Court to take action is frivolous as a matter of law. Federal district courts

19

are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state

20

officials in the performance of their duties. Clark v. State of Wash., 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir.

21

1966) (“federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their

22

judicial officers in the performance of their duties . . .”). A petition for a writ of mandamus to

23

compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law.

24

See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that petitioner’s

25

actions seeking to require state courts to accept his filings were frivolous as matter of law because

26

federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus to state court, citing to 28 U.S.C.

27

§ 1651); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ

28

of mandamus that would order state trial court to give petitioner access to certain trial transcripts
2

1

which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition; federal court may not, as a

2

general rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court

3

litigation). 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is inapplicable here. 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides that district courts

4

have original jurisdiction over mandamus actions seeking to compel federal officers, employees,

5

or agencies to take action. 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The California Supreme Court is not a federal entity

6

or agency. The dismissal of this action is with prejudice because amendment would be futile. See

7

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (district court should grant leave to amend

8

unless pleading could not possibly be cured by allegation of other facts).
CONCLUSION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. Judgment is

11

entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. The Clerk shall deny all pending motions as

12

moot, and close the file.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2025
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3