Garvie v. State of Washington

W.D. Washington

Garvie v. State of Washington

DecidedApril 1, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00218

StatusUnknown

This text of Garvie v. State of Washington (Garvie v. State of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garvie v. State of Washington, (W.D. Wash. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 EUGENE B. GARVIE, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00218-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 12 Respondent.

13 This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 14 Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioner sought a writ of 15 mandamus directed to the Washington State courts. Judge Tsuchida recommends dismissal of the 16 action because the Court is without power to grant the relief requested: 17 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform 18 their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. 19 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 72 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining “to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take 20 or refrain from some action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law”); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 21 (C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties). 22 Dkt. #7 at 3. 23 1 Petitioner did not object to the R&R. Instead, Petitioner filed a substantially similar 2 petition—likewise seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the Washington State courts—with the 3 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit provided this Court 4 with notice of the filing. See Dkt. #8; Garvie v. U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash., No. 21-70756 5 (9th Cir.). Because Petitioner did not object to entry of the R&R and because the Court does not

6 believe that it was divested of jurisdiction by the filing of Petitioner’s substantially similar writ in 7 the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds it prudent to enter this Order. 8 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, 9 United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 10 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #7). 11 (2) The case is dismissed with prejudice. 12 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 13 Tsuchida. 14 Dated this 1st day of April, 2021.

15 16 A 17 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 EUGENE B. GARVIE, 9 Petitioner, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00218-RSM-BAT 10 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 11 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 12 Respondent.

13 This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the 14 Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, United States Magistrate Judge. Petitioner sought a writ of 15 mandamus directed to the Washington State courts. Judge Tsuchida recommends dismissal of the 16 action because the Court is without power to grant the relief requested: 17 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform 18 their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. 19 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 72 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining “to the extent that [petitioner] attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take 20 or refrain from some action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law”); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 21 (C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties). 22 Dkt. #7 at 3. 23 1 Petitioner did not object to the R&R. Instead, Petitioner filed a substantially similar 2 petition—likewise seeking a writ of mandamus directed to the Washington State courts—with the 3 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit provided this Court 4 with notice of the filing. See Dkt. #8; Garvie v. U.S. District Court, W.D. Wash., No. 21-70756 5 (9th Cir.). Because Petitioner did not object to entry of the R&R and because the Court does not

6 believe that it was divested of jurisdiction by the filing of Petitioner’s substantially similar writ in 7 the Ninth Circuit, the Court finds it prudent to enter this Order. 8 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Brian A. Tsuchida, 9 United States Magistrate Judge, and the remaining record, the Court finds and ORDERS: 10 (1) The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #7). 11 (2) The case is dismissed with prejudice. 12 (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties and to Judge 13 Tsuchida. 14 Dated this 1st day of April, 2021.

15 16 A 17 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Garvie v. State of Washington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garvie-v-state-of-washington-wawd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack