Mumim v. The Nebraska Supreme Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that this action is dismissed without prejudice. The court will enter a separate Judgment in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (ADB)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DUKHAN IQRAA JIHAD MUMIN,
THE NEBRASKA SUPREME
Plaintiff Dukhan Iqraa Jihad Mumin (“Mumin”) filed this action on March 25,
2015. This court has given Mumin leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing No. 6.)
The court now conducts an initial review of Mumin’s pleading to determine whether
summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A.
I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW
The court is required to review prisoner and in forma pauperis complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a
governmental entity to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A. The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of
it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Mumin asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a state district
court to comply with the rules governing the use of hearsay. (Filing No. 1.) Under 28
U.S.C. § 1361, 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.” The writ of mandamus is an extraordinary
remedy, and therefore must be issued only in extraordinary circumstances. “In order
to insure that the writ will issue only in extraordinary circumstances [the United States
Supreme Court] has required that a party seeking issuance have no other adequate
means to attain the relief he desires, and that he satisfy the burden of showing that his
right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Allied Chemical Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Mumin has not identified any extraordinary circumstance entitling to mandamus
relief. Moreover, this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a
state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (“The district courts shall 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”)
(emphasis added). Therefore, the court will dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: This action is dismissed without
prejudice. The court will enter a separate Judgment in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 26th day of August, 2015.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Senior United States District Judge
*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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?