Parrish-Parrado v. Waddington et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: This matter is dismissed due to failure to state a claim for relief. Petitioner's motion 4 to appoint counsel and motion 8 for order are denied as moot. Signed by Senior District Judge Richard D. Rogers on 7/6/2012. (Mailed to pro se party Daniel Joseph Parrish-Parrado by regular mail.) (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DANIEL JOSEPH PARRISH-PARRADO,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-3120-RDR

vs.
DOUG WADDINGTON, et al.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by a
prisoner at the Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility.
(LCMHF). Petitioner seeks mandamus relief against the warden and
the LCMHF and asks the court to compel these defendants to
assure access to the facility law library. He proceeds pro se.
Because petitioner is subject to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), the court previously denied leave to proceed
in forma pauperis and directed him to submit the full filing fee
on or before June 18, 2012. Petitioner has not paid the fee, but
he submitted materials to document his request for a withdrawal
from his institutional account and a statement that he would ask
his family to submit the fee. Because no payment has been
received by the clerk of the court, this matter is subject to

dismissal.
In addition, however, this matter is subject to dismissal
for lack of jurisdiction. The federal courts have mandamus
authority only over federal officials. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361
(“The district courts have original jurisdiction of any action
in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of
the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed
to

the

plaintiff.”)

It

is

settled

law

that

this

mandamus

jurisdiction does not extend to requests for relief against
state officials or entities. See Amisub (PSL), Inc. v. State of
Colo.

Dep't

of

Social

Servs.,

879

F.2d

789,

790

(10th

Cir.1989)(“No relief against state officials or state agencies
is afforded by §1361.”)
Because the remedy petitioner seeks is clearly outside the
mandamus authority of the court, this matter must be dismissed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED this matter is
dismissed due to failure to state a claim for relief.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

petitioner’s

motion

to

appoint

counsel (Doc. 4) and motion for order (Doc. 8) are denied as
moot.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the petitioner.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Topeka, Kansas, this 6th day of July, 2012.

S/ Richard D. Rogers
RICHARD D. ROGERS
United States Senior District Judge

3