Hohmann v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al

Filing 8

ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Mot for leave to proceed IFP 2 GRANTED for sole purpose of filing this action.; 2. Petition 1 for writ of mandamus DISMISSED w/out prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.; 3. Clrk of Ct directed to CLOSE case.; 4. Any appeal from this order will be deemed frivolous, w/out probable cause & not taken in good faith. (See order for complete details.)Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 1/14/16. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
EMIL CONOR HOHMANN,
Plaintiff
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DAUPHIN
COUNTY, JUDGE JOSEPH S.
LINDSEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ED MARSICO, LOWER PAXTON
TOWNSHIP OFFICER SCOTT
STAR (BADGE #67), HJ TOWING
AND SALVAGE,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-23
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of January, 2016, upon consideration of the petition
(Doc. 1) for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 filed by plaintiff Emil
Conor Hohmann, and it appearing that the mandamus petition, wherein Hohmann
requests that this court grant relief in his state criminal proceeding and requests

that this court compel state officials to act1, is subject to dismissal because federal
courts generally will not enjoin or otherwise interfere with state criminal
prosecutions, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), and pursuant to the All
Writs Act, courts may issue extraordinary writs only “in aid of their respective
jurisdictions”, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), and because federal courts have no authority to
issue writs of mandamus to state officials, 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”), and therefore this court does not have jurisdiction under §
1361 or under any other federal statute to compel the employees of state courts,
none of whom are officers or employees of the United States or any agency, to
perform a duty, and it further appearing that mandamus is a drastic measure “to be
invoked only in extraordinary situations,” Stehney v. Perry, 101 F.3d 925, 934 (3d
Cir. 1996) (quoting Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980)), and
requires the plaintiff to establish a clear and indisputable right to relief, Allied, 449
U.S. at 35, which is not the case here, it is hereby ORDERED that:

Hohmann asks this court to stay his state court sentence, dismiss with
prejudice all judgments in his state court cases, remove all “points and records”
from his Pennsylvania driver’s license, restore his driver’s license, destroy all state
court records involving his arrest and criminal record, compel the state clerk of
court to produce certain documents, and direct “Cumberland County and Lebanon
County clerks of Court, and all Pennsylvania State Magistrates/ Commissioners,
Common Pleas Judges, HJ Towing and Salvage…, and Charging officers; that have
charged Plaintiff with commercial traffic infractions…, [to] immediately turn over
the information…for their Certified Performance/ Surety Bonds”. (Doc. 1, pp. 1416).
1

2

1.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is
GRANTED for the sole purpose of filing this action.

2.

The petition (Doc. 1) for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4.

Any appeal from this order will be deemed frivolous, without probable
cause and not taken in good faith.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania