Dyer v. Mendocino County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 8, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-03814
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 JEWEL E. DYER, Case No. 23-cv-03814-JSC

10 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING 11 v. MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 12 MENDOCINO COUNTY, FORMA PAUPERIS 13 Defendant. ECF Nos. 2, 8, 15

15 INTRODUCTION 16 Petitioner, an inmate in the Mendocino County Jail who is proceeding without a lawyer, 17 filed this petition for a writ of prohibition or of mandamus.1 (ECF No. 1 at 2-3.) Petitioner 18 indicates she is a pretrial detainee awaiting trial in Mendocino County Superior Court on charges 19 of theft. (Id. at 2.) She claims her lawyer is providing ineffective assistance, and the trial court 20 improperly denied her bail. (Id. at 3.)2 She seeks to an injunction in her criminal proceedings to 21 “prevent hardship on her criminal defense” and money damages. (Id. at 7.) For the reasons 22 discussed below, the petition is DISMISSED, and the motion for sanctions is DENIED. 23 DISCUSSION 24 To begin with, it appears Petitioner did not intend to file the petition in this court. She 25 states in the caption of her petition that it is directed to “The California Appellate Court for the 26 1 Petitioner used a California state court form petition for a writ of habeas corpus, crossed out 27 “habeas corpus,” and replaced it with “prohibition” and “mandamus”. (ECF No. 1 at 1, 5, 8.) 1 Ninth Circuit.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) This phrase combines the names of two different appellate 2 courts: the California Court of Appeal and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 3 Circuit; this court is neither of those two courts. Moreover, that Petitioner used a state court form 4 petition, and in a subsequent “Request for Ruling” cited California Rules of Court, the California 5 Code of Civil Procedure, and the California Penal Code, suggest she intended to file the petition in 6 the state appeals court. (ECF No. 6.) 7 In any event, a writ of prohibition or mandamus is not available in this court because 8 federal courts cannot issue such writs to state courts, such as Mendocino County Superior Court. 9 See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (a petition for a writ of 10 mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a 11 matter of law). The California Court of Appeal may issue writs of prohibition or mandamus to the 12 California superior courts, such as the Mendocino County Superior Court. See Cal. Code Civ. 13 Proc. § § 1102-1105; 1084-1097. The United States Court of Appeals may also issue petitions for 14 writs of mandamus or prohibition directed to a United States District Court, such as this court. See 15 Fed. R. App. P. 21(a). 16 Petitioner is advised that if she wishes to file a federal habeas petition, she may do so 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if she is convicted, and only after she first presents her claims to the 18 California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(a)-(c) 19 (providing for federal habeas relief for a person held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court” 20 after she has fairly presented her claims to the highest state court). While she is a pretrial detainee, 21 she may only file a habeas petition in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), and the only 22 claim she may make in such a petition is a claim under the Double Jeopardy Clause. See Mannes 23 v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 24 1138 (9th Cir. 2018). 25 Petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions against the County of Mendocino, the Northern 26 District of California, and “any judge” for failing to obey the writ of mandamus. (ECF No. 15.) 27 No writ of mandamus has been issued, however, and therefore there are no grounds for sanctions. 1 CONCLUSION 2 The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner seeking a writ of 3 prohibition or a writ of mandamus in the California Court of Appeal or, if applicable, the United 4 States Court of Appeals. This dismissal is also without prejudice to Petitioner filing a petition for 5 a writ of habeas corpus in this Court subject to the limitations explained above. 6 The motion for sanctions (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. The applications to proceed in forma 7 || pauperis are GRANTED in light of Petitioner’s lack of funds. (ECF Nos. 2, 8.) 8 The Clerk shall send Petitioner copies of the federal habeas petition and civil rights 9 complaint forms that she requests. (ECF Nos. 13, 14.) 10 The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 11 This order resolves docket numbers 2, 8, and 15. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 13 Dated: September 8, 2023 I Liu Sat ne JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY = 16 United States District Judge 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28