Charles Walter Weber v. Jocelynn Nordyke, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05970
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 CHARLES WALTER WEBER, CASE NO. 3:25-CV-5970-BHS-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DECLINING SERVICE OF 12 COMPLAINT AND TO SHOW CAUSE JOCELYNN NORDYKE, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The District Court referred this action to United States Magistrate Judge David W. 16 Christel. Plaintiff Charles Walter Weber, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil 17 rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Dkt. 1. Having reviewed and screened Plaintiff’s 18 complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court declines to direct service and, 19 instead, orders Plaintiff to show cause not later than December 18, 2025, why this action should 20 not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 21 I. Background 22 In the complaint, Plaintiff, an inmate at Washington Corrections Center, alleges 23 Defendants Timothy Lang, Secretary of the Washington State Department of Corrections 24 1 (“DOC”); Jocelynn Nordyke, a DOC administrative assistant; and Kimberly Pearson, a DOC 2 records manager; have refused to remove a vacated conviction for attempted murder in the 3 second degree from Plaintiff’s records in the DOC’s Offender Management Network 4 Information (“OMNI”) database. See Dkt. 1-1. He also contends these actions constitute

5 violations of state law and alleges Defendant Derek Sanders, the Thurston County Sheriff, 6 refused to make a complaint when Plaintiff reported these alleged violations. See id. Plaintiff 7 argues Defendants’ actions infringed on his rights to due process and equal protection under the 8 Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See id. He seeks only injunctive relief, 9 requesting the Court order Defendants Nordyke, Pearson, and Lang to remove the vacated 10 conviction from his OMNI sheet and/or order Defendant Sanders to “make a complaint against 11 them for injury to record.” Id. at 23. 12 II. Screening Standard 13 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the Court is required to screen 14 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or an

15 employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must “dismiss the 16 complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint: (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to 17 state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant 18 who is immune from such relief.” Id. at (b); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see Barren v. Harrington, 19 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 1998). “Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), 20 this court must dismiss an action ‘[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of 21 the subject matter[.]’” Bird v. Bowen, No. CIV S–08–1088, 2008 WL 3059466, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 22 Aug. 5, 2008). 23

24 1 The Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 2 97, 106 (1976). However, the pleadings must raise the right to relief beyond the speculative level 3 and must provide “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements 4 of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing

5 Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). 6 II. Discussion 7 Although Plaintiff styled his complaint as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it 8 appears Plaintiff is requesting the Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel state officials to 9 take certain action. 10 A district court has the authority to issue all writs, including writs of mandamus, which 11 are “necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages 12 and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Section 1651(a) does not provide a federal district 13 court with the power to compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another state 14 official’s duties under any circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

15 89, 106 (1984). The district court also has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 to issue 16 writs of mandamus. That jurisdiction is limited, however, to writs of mandamus to “compel an 17 officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty . . . .” 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1361 (emphasis added). A petition for mandamus filed in federal court to compel a state 19 official or agency to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos 20 v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991); Robinson v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 21 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of 22 mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties). 23

24 1 If Plaintiff is attempting to obtain a writ in this Court to compel the State of Washington 2 and its officials to act, as he appears to be, this Court lacks jurisdiction, and the proposed 3 complaint is “frivolous as a matter of law.” See Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161–62. At this time, the 4 Court finds it improbable Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies of his proposed complaint. However,

5 in an abundance of caution, the Court will grant Plaintiff an opportunity to show cause by 6 December 18, 2025, why this complaint should not be dismissed. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 7 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992); Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) (“A 8 district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend unless ‘it is 9 absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.’”) 10 (quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 1988)). 11 III. Instruction to Plaintiff and the Clerk 12 For the reasons identified above, if Plaintiff intends to proceed in this action, he must 13 show cause not later than December 18, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed as 14 frivolous and for lack of jurisdiction. If Plaintiff truly intends to pursue a § 1983 civil rights

15 action in this Court, he must file an amended complaint containing a short, plain statement 16 telling the Court: (1) the constitutional right Plaintiff believes was violated; (2) the name of the 17 person who violated the right; (3) exactly what the individual did or failed to do; (4) how the 18 action or inaction of the individual is connected to the violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional 19 rights; and (5) what specific injury Plaintiff suffered because of the individual’s conduct. See 20 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371–72, 377 (1976). 21 Plaintiff shall present any amended complaint on the form provided by the Court. The 22 amended complaint will act as a complete substitute for the original complaint, and not as a 23 supplement. The Court will screen the amended complaint to determine whether it contains

24 1 factual allegations linking each Defendant to the alleged violations of Plaintiff’s rights. The 2 Court will not authorize service of the amended complaint on any Defendant who is not 3 specifically linked to a violation of Plaintiff’s rights. 4 Failure to respond to this order by the stated deadline or to adequately address the issues

5 identified above will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 6 The Clerk is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of this order and the appropriate forms for 7 filing a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint and for service. 8 Dated this 25th day of November, 2025. 9 A 10 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24