Norton v. State of Texas

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Norton's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. Any and all remaining pending motions are denied as moot. (Signed by Judge Vanessa D Gilmore) Parties notified.(rosaldana, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JASON MARC NORTON,
(TDCJ-CID #1134361)
Petitioner,

§

STATE OF TEXAS,

David J. Bradley, Clerk

§
§
§
§

vs.

January 20, 2017

§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-17-0140

§
Respondent.

§

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION

Jason Marc Norton, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional
Institutions division, sued in January 2017, seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Texas.
Norton seeks an order compelling the respondent to provide him with the transcripts of the criminal
proceedings.
The threshold issue is whether this court has jurisdiction to consider Norton's petition for a
writ of mandamus. Based on the pleadings, the record, and the applicable authorities, this court
dismisses this petition for lack of jurisdiction. The reasons for this ruling are stated below.

I.

Procedural History and Background
On November 9, 2014, Norton was charged with delivery ofacontrolled substance to a child

and sexual assault in Cause Number 39156. Norton seeks to compel the State of Texas to provide
him with the transcripts of the criminal proceedings so that he can prepare his post-conviction
application for state habeas corpus relief.

II.

Analysis
To the extent Norton seeks a writ of mandamus against the State of Texas, this court lacks

o \RAO\vDG\2017\17-0!40 aOI wpd 6/4/0310 5X am

jurisdiction.

Federal district courts are courts of limited statutory jurisdiction. See

Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc. v. Nat 'I Park Serv., 112 F.3d 1283, 1286 (5th Cir. 1997);
Veldhoen v.

u.s. Coast Guard, 35 F.3d 222,225 (5th Cir. 1994). The only federal statute conferring

the authority to issue writs of mandamus on the federal district courts is 28 U.S.C. Section 1361.
That statute specifically provides that "[t]he 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." Dunn-McCampbell Royalty Interest, Inc.,
112 F.3d at 1288 (quoting 28 U.S.c. § 1361). The respondent in this case is the State of Texas. The
respondent is not a federal officer, agent, or employee and is not subject to the statutory mandamus
authority of this court. This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Norton's request for mandamus
relief.

III.

Conclusion
Norton's petition for a writ of mandamus is DENIED. Any and all remaining pending

motions are DENIED as moot.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on

-::fdl ~ l C1

,2017.

VANESSA D. GILMORE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

O:\RAO\VDG\2017\17..()140 aOl,wpd 6/4/0] 10.58 am

2