Milner v. Mulligan et al

Filing 16

ORDER re 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Shawn Milner, 9 MOTION for Temporary Restraining filed by Shawn Milner, 13 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Shawn Milner. The defendants shall respond to the above-referenced motions within thirty (30) days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/6/2017. (Landman, M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SHAWN MILNER,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM MULLIGAN, et al.,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No. 3:16-cv-1857 (SRU)

RULING ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The plaintiff, Shawn Milner, has filed a motion asking the Court to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the defendants to transfer him to a medically acceptable facility where he
can be fed, attend recreation and litigate his cases.
Milner alleges that he has been housed in administrative segregation as a pretrial detainee
for seven months. Milner states that he was retaliated against twice for filing this lawsuit;
surveillance footage of his cell on December 11, 2016, and December 14, 2016, will support this
allegation. Milner alleges that on one of the two days, his food was taken from him by force and
he was assaulted. Milner further alleges that his cell is dirty and has no windows, he is issued
false disciplinary reports, he has not attended recreation for 51 days and has not been able to
telephone his family for over two months. Milner contends that the defendants have violated his
medical confidentiality and discriminated against him because of his disabling condition.
Mandamus relief is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1361. That statute, however, is limited by
its terms to actions “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof
to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to grant
mandamus relief against state officials. See, e.g., Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir.

1988); Anderson v. Rehmer, 2015 WL 6675535, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2015). As no defendant
is a federal employee, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
However, the Court will construe the motion as a motion for temporary restraining order
and directs the defendants to respond to the motion. The Clerk is directed to re-caption the
motion (ECF No. 9) as a motion for temporary restraining order. Milner has since filed two
additional motions for temporary restraining orders. Because the allegations in those motions are
substantially the same as the allegations in the instant motion, the defendants are directed to
respond to those motions (ECF Nos. 11, 13) and the instant motion (ECF No. 9) within thirty
(30) days from the date of this order.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of January 2017 at Bridgeport, Connecticut.

/s/STEFAN R. UNDERHILL
Stefan R. Underhill
United States District Judge

2