(HC) Bolin v. Lipsig

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01552
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL C. BOLIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1552-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOLIE LIPSIG, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Paul C. Bolin, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of 18 mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The petition for writ is deficient, however, because 19 it impermissibly seeks to compel action from state agencies and officials. Moreover, although 20 this case is classified as one seeking a writ of habeas corpus, the petition for mandamus does not 21 attack any underlying conviction; instead, it argues that respondents have denied petitioner access 22 to the state court system. Accordingly, I find that this action cannot proceed. I will give 23 petitioner one opportunity to amend. I will also grant his application to proceed in forma 24 pauperis, ECF No. 2. 25 A writ of mandamus is available “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or 26 any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, petitioner 27 impermissibly seeks to compel state officials, all of whom appear to be members of the “state 28 1 | public defender’s office.” See Demos v. United States Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-1162 2 | (9th Cir. 1991) (Thus, to the extent that Demos attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a 3 || state court to take or refrain from some action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law.”); 4 | Robinson v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Nor can this 5 | Court treat the plaintiff's complaint as a request for writ of mandamus since federal courts are 6 | without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their 7 | duties.”). I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend and explain why this action should 8 || proceed. 9 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 10 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 11 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 12 | petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 13 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal may 14 |} result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 15 || with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 16 4. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is GRANTED. 17 5. The Clerk of Court shall send petitioner a federal habeas form with this order. 18 6. Petitioner’s motion to cease and desist, ECF No. 6, is DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( q Sty - Dated: _ July 30, 2025 ow—— 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28