Fields v. State of Oklahoma et al

Filing 48

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; albeit for reasons other than those provided in the Report and Recommendation. The remaining motions filed by Petitioner, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 10/9/14. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES FIELDS, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-14-65-R

ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Shon T. Erwin entered August 25, 2014. Doc. No. 45. Petitioner has filed an
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions in the Report and Recommendation.
Doc. No. 47. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Court reviews the Report and
Recommendation de novo in light of Petitioner’s objections.
Petitioner, a pretrial detainee, seeks a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas
corpus regarding three criminal cases pending against him in Oklahoma state court. He
asks the Court to order the State of Oklahoma and the state judges to “cease
proceedings,” order the court clerk’s office to provide Petitioner with the original police
arrest reports, order the state court to dismiss the public defender’s office because of a
conflict of interest and other unethical conduct, and to order Attorney Eric Cotton to
return evidence pertaining to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Doc. No. 1, at 1, 3; Doc. No. 5.1
Petitioner also complains of the state judge’s refusal to appoint him a lawyer because he
1

Although Petitioner has filed an “Amended Writ of Mandamus,” Doc. No. 5, the Court interprets this
document as a supplement to his original Writ of Mandamus, Doc. No. 1.

could afford to post bond, and one judge’s failure to respond to his request for an
injunction related to his denied motions. Doc. No. 1, at 2-3.2
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing Petitioner’s action without
prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Petitioner objects, arguing
that he has alleged “clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial authority” because
the state court has not ruled on any motions in a timely manner, including his motion for
a writ of habeas corpus. Doc. No. 47, at 1, 3. To the extent Petitioner’s request is
interpreted as a petition for writ of mandamus, federal courts do not have authority to
issue such a writ to state officials.3 Regarding Petitioner’s request to order Attorney Eric
Cotton to return evidence to him, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Younger.
To the extent Petitioner’s request is interpreted as a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, he must first exhaust state remedies. Montez v. McKinna,
208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has the burden of proving that he
exhausted state remedies or that exhaustion would be futile. Selsor v. Workman, 644 F.3d
984, 1026 (10th Cir. 2011). He alleges that he has filed a petition for a writ of habeas
2

Petitioner also asked the Court in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed May 16, 2014 to order the
agency that has custody of him to forward payment from his account to the court clerk. Doc. No. 27, at 3.
This request is now moot because Petitioner has paid the partial filing fee requested by the Court. Doc.
No. 44.
3
28 U.S.C. § 1361 (providing for original jurisdiction to compel “an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff”) (emphasis added)); Nelson v. Tulsa
Cnty. 14th Judicial Dist., 124 F.3d 217, 217 (10th Cir. Sept. 16, 1997) (unpublished op.) (“Section 1361
by its plain language does not provide federal district courts jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus
against state officials.” (citing Cauthon v. Finney, 81 F.3d 172, 172 (10th Cir. 1996) (unpublished op.)));
Olson v. Hart, 965 F.2d 940, 942 (10th Cir. 1992) (“Federal courts have no authority to issue a writ of
mandamus to a state judge.”); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir.1986) (“We
have no authority to issue [ ] a writ [of mandamus] to ‘direct state courts or their judicial officers in the
performance of their duties.’” (citation omitted)).
2

corpus in state court and the court has either not ruled on the petition or has not ruled on
it in a timely manner. Doc. No. 1, at 3; Doc. No. 47, at 1, 3. If the Court has not ruled on
his petition, he may request a writ of mandamus from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals (“OCCA”) asking that it order the district court to issue a ruling. Rules of the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Rule 10.6(B). If the state court has ruled on his
petition, he may appeal any denial to the OCCA. Id., Rule 10.6(C). Absent allegations of
taking such action, Petitioner has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating exhaustion
of state remedies.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice, albeit for reasons other
than those provided in the Report and Recommendation. The remaining motions filed by
Petitioner, Doc. Nos. 23, 24, 30, 46, are therefore moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of October, 2014.

3