Schofield v. State of Florida

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing the action; directing the Clerk to close the case. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 1/29/2014. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
PRESTON SCHOFIELD,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 8:14-cv-150-T-23TGW

STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
/

ORDER
Schofield petitions for the writ of mandamus to require the state attorney to
provide discovery in a state criminal action. However, a federal court lacks
jurisdiction to issue a writ to direct a state agency, a state court, or the state’s judicial
employee to perform a duty. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F.2d
383 (5th Cir. 1971).* See also Campbell v. Gersten, 394 Fed. App’x 654 (11th Cir. 2010)
(“The district court also lacked authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the
state court and its officers to reinstate his motions to vacate and consider those
motions on the merits.”) (citing Lamar v. 118th Judicial Dist. Court, 440 F.2d at 384);
Lawrence v. Miami-Dade County State Att’y Office, 272 Fed. App’x 781, 781 (11th Cir.
2008) (“Because the only relief Lawrence sought was a writ of mandamus compelling

*

Unless later superseded by Eleventh Circuit precedent, a Fifth Circuit decision issued
before October 1, 1981, binds this court. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc).

action from state officials, not federal officials, the district court lacked jurisdiction to
grant relief and did not err in dismissing the petition.”); Bailey v. Silberman, 226 Fed.
App’x 922, 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Federal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of
mandamus directing a state court and its judicial officers in the performance of their
duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.”).
Accordingly, Schofield’s petition for the writ of mandamus (Doc. 1) is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk must close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 29, 2014.

-2-