St. Cloud v. Dooley

Filing 3

ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Richard Norman St. Cloud, Sr. Signed by Charles B. Kornmann on April 6, 2012. (DLC)

'FILE:)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

,APR 06 2012

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

~

CENTRAL DIVISION

******************************************************************************
RICHARD NORMAN ST. CLOUD, SR.,
Petitioner,
-vs­
ROBERT DOOLEY, Warden, Mike Durfee
State Prison,
Respondent.

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

CIV 12-3010

ORDER

******************************************************************************
Petitioner pleaded guilty in Federal District Court to involuntary sodomy and was
sentenced to 25 years custody, He filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction
and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, contending he was not an Indian and the federal court
therefore lacked jurisdiction over him. His motion was granted, St. Cloud v. United States, 702
F. Supp. 1456 (D.S.D. 1988).
Petitioner was thereafter tried and convicted in South Dakota Circuit Court of rape and
kidnapping and was sentenced to 25 years and 60 years imprisonment, respectively. His
convictions and sentences were affirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court. State v. St.
Cloud, 465 NW2d 177 (S.D. 1991). He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is state court
contending, inter alia, that he was an Indian and the federal court, not the state court, had
jurisdiction over him. His petition was denied. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed as to
the issue regarding jurisdiction but reversed and remanded as to two other issues. st. Cloud v.
Leapley, 521 NW2d 118 (S.D. 1994). Following remand, the South Dakota Circuit court again
denied the writ. The South Dakota Supreme Court affirmed. St. Cloud v. Class, 550 NW2d 70,
(S.D. 1996).
Petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
alleging, inter alia, that the state court did not have jurisdiction because he was an Indian. I
denied the writ on all grounds and denied a certificate of appealability. The United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal.

Petitioner has now filed a "writ of mandamus" requesting that I order the State of South
Dakota, federal agencies, and trial counsel to provide petitioner medical and investigative
materials concerning his state court convictions. He contends that he needs them to respond to
state court findings of facts and conclusions of law. "The writ of mandamus in civil actions in
the federal district courts is abolished." Booker v. State of Arkansas, 380 F.2d 240 (8th Cir.

1967) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 81 (b)):
Petitioner is seeking discovery to support a state court attack upon his convictions and
sentences. Federal courts cannot interfere with state court litigation or compel state court action
byway of mandamus. See In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001).
Petitioner has no pending habeas petition in federal court and has not asserted that he has
been authorized by the Eighth Circuit to file a second or successive petition as required by Rule 9
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. This Court has
no jurisdiction to act on petitioner's request. Although 28 U.S.C. § 1361 would authorize this
court to compel employees of the United States to perform a duty owed to petitioner, that statute
does not confer jurisdiction. Jeno's Inc. v. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks ofU. S.,
498 F.Supp. 472,476 (D. Minn. 1980).
Now, therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Dated this 514Iay of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:

~~Ar--ATTEST:
JOSEPH HAAS, Clerk

CHARLESB.KORNMANN
United States District Judge

B£B~~U'Jf-(SEAL)

Abrogated on other grounds, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410
U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (1973).
1

2