Atwood v. Stephens
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the District Court DISMISS for Want of Prosecution Atwood's 1 Petition for Writ of Mandamus. It is Further Recommended that hte District Court DISMISS Atwood's 5 Motion to Amend. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TONY CURTIS ATWOOD
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1(f) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules. Before the
Court are Petitioner’s “Original Application for Writ of Mandamus” (Dkt. No. 1), Original
Argument/Memorandum in Support (Dkt. No. 4), and motion to amend his memorandum ( Dkt. No.
5). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has paid the $5.00 filing fee.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Petitioner, he was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to 20 years in
prison, and his sentence began on August 24, 1991. He states he was released on mandatory
supervision in 2002, but it was revoked in 2008, and he was returned to prison without credit for the
time he spent on mandatory supervision. He argues his sentence should have been discharged on
August 24, 2011, but the TDCJ - Correctional Institutions Division added “some 5 or 6 years” to the
sentence. Petitioner requests the Court to order his immediate release.
In his motion to amend Petitioner requests 20 days to prepare or amend his memorandum or
argument in support of his Application for Writ of Mandamus. More than 20 days has expired, and
Petitioner has not provided the Court with an amended memorandum.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Although the writ of mandamus was abolished by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b),
federal courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Actions in the nature of
mandamus are provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which states as follows:
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.
Federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to issue the writ against a state actor or agency. See
generally Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1973); accord,
Noble v. Cain, 123 Fed. Appx. 151 (5th Cir. Feb.16, 2005) (available at 2005 WL 361818) (citing
Moye to hold that mandamus relief is not available to federal courts to direct state officials in the
performance of their duties and function). As such, mandamus relief is not available to compel or
direct the actions of state officials or other non-federal employees. Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72,
74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir.
1969). Thus, the Court is without jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Mandamus.1
Because the Court does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Mandamus,
Petitioner’s motion to amend should be dismissed.
The relief Petitioner seeks is actually habeas corpus relief. However, Petitioner has not
exhausted his state court remedies. Although he has filed a state application for habeas corpus relief,
it was dismissed because Petitioner had not exhausted his remedies by filing a time credit dispute
at the prison Accordingly, the Court does not recommend construing Petitioner’s Application for
Writ of Mandamus as an Application for Habeas Corpus Relief.
It is therefore recommended that Petitioner’s “Original Application for Writ of Mandamus,”
be dismissed without prejudice for want of jurisdiction and Petitioner’s motion to amend be
Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file
written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1)(C). Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by
the district court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the district court except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Assoc., 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc); Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-277 (5th Cir. 1988).
To the extent that a party has not been served by the Clerk with this Report and
Recommendation electronically, pursuant to the CM/ECF procedures of this District, the Clerk is
ORDERED to mail such party a copy of this Report and Recommendation by certified mail, return
SIGNED this 11th day of June, 2015.
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?