(HC) Jolivette v. Superior Court of Solano County

Opinion

PAUL PATRICK JOLIVETTE, Case No. 2:25-cv-0180-JDP (P) Petitioner, ORDER v. COUNTY, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner Paul Patrick Jolivette, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The petition for writ is deficient, however, because it impermissibly seeks to compel action from state agencies and officials, and otherwise fails to provide a straightforward and cogent argument for why such a writ should issue. I will dismiss this petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may attempt to remedy these deficiencies. A writ of mandamus is available “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, petitioner impermissibly seeks to compel state officials, agencies, and courts, however. See Demos v. United States Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Thus, to the extent that Demos attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law.”); Robinson vy. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Nor can this Court treat the plaintiff’s complaint as a request for writ of mandamus since federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties.”). Additionally, at a more fundamental level, the petition is comprised of vague allegations of illegality, and I cannot understand plaintiff's claims. I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend and attempt to remedy these deficiencies. Given that the petition is deficient, I will deny petitioner’s request for discharge of custody, ECF No. 5, and issuance of order to show cause, ECF No. 6. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED with leave to amend. 2. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended petition or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 3. Failure to timely file either an amended petition or notice of voluntary dismissal may } result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 4, Petitioner’s request for discharge of custody, ECF No. 5, and issuance of order to show cause, ECF No. 6, are DENIED. ( q oy — Dated: _ April 30, 2025 q——— JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE