(HC) Chatman v. The State of California

E.D. California

(HC) Chatman v. The State of California

DecidedJune 4, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00802

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(HC) Chatman v. The State of California, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RICKEY LEE CHATMAN, JR., ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00802-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 15 Respondent. ) ) [THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 )

17 On May 17, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 1361. For the following reasons, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED WITH 19 PREJUDICE. 20 DISCUSSION 21 The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all 22 courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 23 respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The federal mandamus 24 statute set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 25 any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any 26 agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is only 27 available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty if (1) the petitioner’s claim is 28 clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer “is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from 1 doubt,” Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v. 2 Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir.1970)); and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers’ 3 Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). 4 Petitioner outlines the previous filings of petitions for writ of habeas corpus and petition for 5 writ of mandate that he takes issue with and discusses his disagreement with same. (See Doc. 1 at 1- 6 17.) Petitioner makes various claims related to, among other things, alleged new evidence, witness 7 tampering and obstruction of justice, and he further argues for an evidentiary hearing. (See id.) 8 However, it appears that Petitioner is attempting to reargue previous claims, which have been 9 addressed previously. Furthermore, mandamus relief is not available because Respondent is not an 10 officer, employee or agency of the United States. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does not vest a federal 11 district court with the power to compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another state 12 official’s duties under any circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 13 106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform 14 their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain 15 from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161- 16 72 (9th Cir.1991); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F.Supp. 1303, 1308 17 (C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies 18 in the performance of their duties); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F.Supp. 183, 187 (D.Ariz.1981) (plaintiff 19 sought order from federal court directing state court to provide speedy trial), aff’d without opinion, 20 673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir.1982). 21 ORDER 22 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case. 23 RECOMMENDATION 24 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED WITH 25 PREJUDICE as frivolous. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 28 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty 1 days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 2 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the 4 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to 5 file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. 6 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: June 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 RICKEY LEE CHATMAN, JR., ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00802-JLT (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. ) ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 15 Respondent. ) ) [THIRTY-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 )

17 On May 17, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 1361. For the following reasons, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED WITH 19 PREJUDICE. 20 DISCUSSION 21 The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court and all 22 courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 23 respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The federal mandamus 24 statute set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of 25 any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any 26 agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is only 27 available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty if (1) the petitioner’s claim is 28 clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer “is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from 1 doubt,” Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v. 2 Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir.1970)); and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers’ 3 Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). 4 Petitioner outlines the previous filings of petitions for writ of habeas corpus and petition for 5 writ of mandate that he takes issue with and discusses his disagreement with same. (See Doc. 1 at 1- 6 17.) Petitioner makes various claims related to, among other things, alleged new evidence, witness 7 tampering and obstruction of justice, and he further argues for an evidentiary hearing. (See id.) 8 However, it appears that Petitioner is attempting to reargue previous claims, which have been 9 addressed previously. Furthermore, mandamus relief is not available because Respondent is not an 10 officer, employee or agency of the United States. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does not vest a federal 11 district court with the power to compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another state 12 official’s duties under any circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 13 106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state officials to conform 14 their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a state official to take or refrain 15 from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161- 16 72 (9th Cir.1991); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F.Supp. 1303, 1308 17 (C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies 18 in the performance of their duties); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 F.Supp. 183, 187 (D.Ariz.1981) (plaintiff 19 sought order from federal court directing state court to provide speedy trial), aff’d without opinion, 20 673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir.1982). 21 ORDER 22 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District Judge to the case. 23 RECOMMENDATION 24 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED WITH 25 PREJUDICE as frivolous. 26 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 27 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 28 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within thirty 1 days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 2 objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the 4 Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to 5 file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. 6 Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: June 4, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Chatman v. The State of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-chatman-v-the-state-of-california-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack