James v. Emmens et al

Filing 80

ORDER Denying 74 Plaintiff's Request for Return of Legal Property as Moot; Denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion for Sanctions and Injunctive Relief; and Denying 79 Plaintiff's Motion for Extraordinary Writ. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 1/11/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KYLE ROBERT JAMES, Case No.: 16cv2823-WQH (NLS) Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER: DEPUTY EMMENS, et al., 13 (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RETURN OF LEGAL PROPERTY AS MOOT [ECF No. 74]; Defendants. 14 (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [ECF No. 75]; and 15 16 17 18 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY EXTRAORDINARY WRIT [ECF No. 79] 19 20 21 22 Before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Kyle Robert James, 23 proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 24 1983. Plaintiff previously notified the Court that he was being moved from Corcoran 25 State Prison to the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department in connection 26 with his criminal retrial. ECF No. 68. 27 28 On December 27, 2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a request for the Court to assist him in retrieving his legal property, which he claims was lost during his transfer to 1 16cv2823-WQH (NLS) 1 San Diego Central Jail on December 21 and was being withheld from him by the jail 2 deputies. ECF No. 74. The next day, on December 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for 3 sanctions and for injunctive relief against the San Diego Central Jail deputies for 4 withholding his legal property. ECF No. 75. On January 3, 2018, Plaintiff constructively 5 filed a motion for Emergency Extraordinary Writ, asking the Court to take him from the 6 San Diego County Sheriff’s Custody and to place him back into federal custody during 7 his state court criminal proceedings. ECF No. 79. 8 In his most recent motion for Emergency Extraordinary Writ, Plaintiff states that 9 his state court attorney aided him in retrieving his legal property. ECF. No. 79 at 8. 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT his motion for return of legal property. 11 The Court declines to impose any sanctions or issue any further relief against the 12 San Diego Central Jail deputies in connection with Plaintiff’s legal property. Plaintiff 13 now appears to be in possession of his legal property, has not alleged any concrete harm 14 arising from missing his legal materials for a few days, and has not set forth any 15 egregious conduct by the deputies as to his property that warrants sanctions. The Court 16 DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions and injunctive relief. 17 Finally, Plaintiff previously moved the Court to issue a preemptory writ of 18 mandate to prevent him from being placed into the San Diego County Sheriff’s custody 19 by the San Diego Superior Court. ECF No. 65. The Court denied this motion because 20 Plaintiff failed to provide any legal authority under which the Court could issue such a 21 writ to a state court. ECF No. 69. Plaintiff seeks essentially the same relief in his instant 22 motion—that the Court issue an order directing him to be removed from state custody— 23 but again fails to provide any legal authority for the Court to take such action. As the 24 Court previously noted, a federal court “lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to 25 a state court.” Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court for E. Dist. of Washington, 925 F.2d 1160, 26 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that ‘to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a 27 writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some action, the petitions 28 are frivolous as a matter of law”); In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001) 2 16cv2823-WQH (NLS) 1 (Posner) (federal courts “cannot . . . use our power to issue mandamus to a state judicial 2 officer to control or interfere with state court litigation, thus exceeding our jurisdiction”); 3 Haggard v. State of Tenn., 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970) (“federal courts have no 4 authority to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the 5 performance of their duties”). Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 6 Emergency Extraordinary Writ. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 11, 2018 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 16cv2823-WQH (NLS)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?