Kelly v. Bishop et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 3/21/2017. (c/m 3/22/17)(kr2, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ANTHONY QUINTIN KELLY, #352736
WARDEN FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., el al.
CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB- I7-764
On March 20, 2017, the Court received for filing the above-captioned Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, filed by Anthony Kelly, a Maryland prisoner housed at the North Branch Correctional
Kelly seemingly claims that a Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge did
not have the authority to enter an order in September of2008 and he contends his convictions and
sentences are unconstitutional.
In effect, he alleges that he has been illegally imprisoned and
detained without legal warrant. He seeks mandamus relief to compel state authorities to release him
from state custody. ECF NO.1. Kelly's Petition was accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed
In Fonna Pauperis, which shall be granted. The Petition shall, however, be summarily dismissed.
Mandamus relief is a remedy only used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United
Slales Disl. COllrl, 426 U.S. 394,402 (1976); In re Beard, 81 I F.2d 8 I 8,826 (4
S 1361 confers
Cir. 1987). Title
original jurisdiction on the United States District Courts "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." Thus, a federal court may only issue a writ of mandamus
against an employee or official of the United States and, even then, may only command that
employee or official "to perform a mandatory or ministerial duty, rather than one that is purely
discretionary." Ocean Breeze Feslival Park v. Reich, 853 F.Supp. 906, 915 (E.D. Va. 1994), affirmed
by Virginia Beach Policeman's Benevolent Association v. Reich, 96 F.3d 1440 (4th Cir. 1996). A
federal court does not have jurisdiction over state entities or employees in an action for writ of
mandamus. See Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969);
see also AT & T Wireless PCS v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment. 172 F.3d 307, 312 n. 3
(4th Cir. 1999). Consequently, this Court has no authority to provide the relief sought by Kelly. A
separate Order follows denying mandamus relief.
Date: March;!/, 2017
A4~ .:$.:16RICHARD D. BENNETT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?