Griffin v. Texas Court of Criminal Appeals et al
Filing
10
Opinion and Order. Clifford D. Griffin's petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under authority of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). (Ordered by Senior Judge Terry R Means on 11/2/2016) (trt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CLIFFORD D. GRIFFIN,
(TDCJ No. 0618620)
V.
TEXAS COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEALS, et al.,
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO.4:15-CV-154-Y
§
§
§
§
OPINION and ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(B)(1)
and UNDER 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)
This case is before the Court for review, under the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), of pro-se inmate
and
plaintiff/petitioner Clifford D. Griffin’s petition for writ
of mandamus.
Petitioner Griffin was permitted to proceed in forma
pauperis with the filing fee to be collected from his inmate account
under the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”).
A complaint filed in forma pauperis that lacks an arguable
basis in law should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B),
a district court retains broad discretion in determining at any time
whether an in-forma-pauperis claim should be dismissed.
See 28
U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West 2006); see Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Section 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires
dismissal not only when an allegation of poverty is untrue or the
action is frivolous or malicious, but also when “the action . .
.
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.”
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2)(A) and (B) (West 2006). Furthermore, as a
part of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), Congress enacted
28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to review a complaint
from a prisoner seeking relief from a governmental entity or
governmental
officer
or
employee
as
soon
as
possible
after
docketing. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(a)(West 2006). Consistent with
§ 1915A is prior case law recognizing that a district court is not
required to await a responsive pleading to conduct its § 1915
inquiry. See Schultea v. Wood, 47 F. 3d 1427, 1434 (5th Cir. 1995).
Rather, § 1915 gives judges the power to “dismiss a claim based on
an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. (citing Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327.) After review of the petition for writ of mandamus
filed in this case, the Court concludes that this action must be
dismissed.
By this action, Clifford Griffin seeks a writ of mandamus from
this Court directing the county clerk of Tarrant County, Texas, to
take specific action regarding the transmission of records of
Griffin’s state application for writ of habeas corpus to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals; and he seeks a directive from this Court
to Judge Elizabeth Beach as to conducting an evidentiary hearing,
issuing findings of fact and conclusion of law, and as to the
substantive ruling on his state writ application challenging the
revocation of his parole.1 (Petition (doc. 1) at 2-4.) Griffin does
1
The Court notes that Clifford Griffin also challenged the revocation of
parole in this the Northern District of Texas through a petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Griffin v. Davis, No. 4:15-CV-514-O
(N.D. Tex. May 26, 2016). That case was dismissed with prejudice by order and
2
not provide any authority for his request, and although the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provides that a court “may issue all
writs
necessary
or
appropriate
in
aid
of
[its]
respective
jurisdiction,” the act does not, by itself, provide an independent
basis for jurisdiction. Instead, it may be invoked only in aid of
jurisdiction already possessed by the Court on some other ground.
See Brittingham v. U.S.C.I.R., 451 F.2d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1971).
But federal courts lack "the general power to issue writs of
mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the
performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief
sought." Moye v. Clerk, Dekalb County Sup.Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276
(5th Cir.1973). In this case, Petitioner seeks only mandamus relief.
He alleges the state-court judge failed to properly rule on his writ
application, and the district clerk failed to properly transmit the
relevant records to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He seeks
an order compelling the state court officials to act. This Court is
without power to enter such an order. Although not referenced by
Griffin, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 affords this Court jurisdiction “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.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361 (West 2006). As this section only
judgment entered on May 26, 2016. Griffin’s direct appeal from that judgment was
dismissed for want of prosecution by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit. Griffin v. Davis, No. 16-10849 (5th Cir. Aug. 18, 2016). This
Court takes judicial notice of the records of the Court in this related case
filed by Griffin. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) and (c)(1).
3
authorizes the Court to compel federal officials or agencies to act,
it grants no jurisdiction to this Court to dictate action by a state
judicial officer or clerk.
Therefore, the petition for mandamus relief lacks an arguable
basis in law and should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous
pursuant to 1915A(b)(1). See Santee v. Quinlan, 115 F.3d 355, 357
(5th Cir.1997)(affirming dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus
as frivolous because federal courts lack the power to mandamus state
courts in the performance of their duties).
Clifford
D.
Griffin’s
petition
for
writ
of
mandamus is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE under authority of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1)
and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii).
SIGNED November 2, 2016.
____________________________
TERRY R. MEANS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?