Edward James Hills v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 9 EDWARD JAMES HILLS, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01207-TL Plaintiff, 10 ORDER ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF v. MANDAMUS 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 12 SECURITY,

13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s submission captioned as “Writ of 16 Mandamus.” Dkt. No. 39. Having reviewed the filing, the Court STRIKES it as an improper 17 pleading. 18 Two issues preclude the Court from docketing the submission. 19 First, the submission, construed liberally, appears to be a petition for writ of mandamus 20 brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. See Dkt. No. 39 at 6. It is directed toward four judges in this 21 District, including the undersigned. See id. at 5. Although Petitioner’s objective in presenting the 22 submission is not entirely clear, he has named the United States District Court, Western District 23 of Washington (Seattle Division) as one of the purported “Defendants.” Id. at 6–7. Federal Rule 24 of Appellate Procedure 21 governs a petition for “a writ of mandamus or prohibition directed to a 1 court.” Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1). Among the formal and procedural requirements prescribed by 2 the Rule is a directive that the petition be “file[d] . . . with the circuit clerk and serve[d] . . . on all 3 parties to the proceeding in the trial court.” Id. Although Plaintiff has filed two interlocutory 4 appeals with the Ninth Circuit (see Dkt. Nos. 17, 25), he has not filed a petition for writ of

5 mandamus, at least as far as the Court is aware. 6 Second, a petition for a writ of mandamus is a cause of action. 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see 7 Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Obama, 807 F. Supp. 2d 28, 33–34 (D.D.C. 2011) (describing a writ of 8 mandamus as a “non-statutory review action” that might be available to a plaintiff where a 9 statute does not contain a private cause of action) (collecting cases); Recinos v. Comm’r of Soc. 10 Sec., No. C23-5183, 2023 WL 3304223, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 2023) (“A Writ of 11 Mandamus would be an entirely separate lawsuit . . . .”). As such, it must be properly pleaded 12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. That is, a request for writ of mandamus cannot 13 simply be appended to a pleading as a matter of course, then seamlessly incorporated into the 14 case. Instead, the case’s operative pleading—in this case, a complaint (Dkt. No. 6)—must be

15 properly amended under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, to include the new cause(s) of 16 action. 17 Plaintiff has not filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint. Rule 15(a)(1) 18 provides a party may amend its pleading without first obtaining permission from the Court or the 19 opposing party “once as a matter of course no later than: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the 20 pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive 21 pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.” 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1). Neither circumstance applies here. Consequently, Plaintiff “may amend 23 [his] pleading only with [Defendant’s] written consent or the [C]ourt’s leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

24 15(a)(2) (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s motion does not indicate that he has obtained Defendant’s 1 || written consent (see generally Dkt. No. 39), and Plaintiff has not requested leave from the Court 2 || to amend his complaint. 3 The Court has “inherent power to control [its] docket.” Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., 4 || Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). Such power “includes the power to strike items from the 5 || docket... .” /d. (collecting cases). “[D]istrict courts in this circuit generally strike or dismiss 6 || new claims or parties contained in an amended complaint when the plaintiff did not seek leave to 7 || amend.” White v. City of West Sacramento, No. C20-2383, 2022 WL 16748701, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 8 || Nov. 7, 2022) (collecting cases). 9 Therefore, Plaintiff's “Writ of Mandamus” (Dkt. No. 39) is STRICKEN. 10 Dated this 9th day of April, 2026.

12 ana Lin 3 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

ORDER ON MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS — 3