(HC) Jolivette v. Superior Court of Solano County

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00180
• 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 PATRICK JOLIVETTE, Case No. 2:25-cv-0180-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF SOLANO COUNTY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner Paul Patrick Jolivette, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ 19 of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The petition for writ is deficient, however, 20 because it impermissibly seeks to compel action from state agencies and officials, and otherwise 21 fails to provide a straightforward and cogent argument for why such a writ should issue. I will 22 dismiss this petition with leave to amend so that petitioner may attempt to remedy these 23 deficiencies. 24 A writ of mandamus is available “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or 25 any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Here, petitioner 26 impermissibly seeks to compel state officials, agencies, and courts, however. See Demos v. 27 United States Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Thus, to the extent that 28 Demos attempts to obtain a writ in this court to compel a state court to take or refrain from some 1 | action, the petitions are frivolous as a matter of law.”); Robinson vy. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 2 | F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Nor can this Court treat the plaintiff’s complaint as a 3 | request for writ of mandamus since federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus 4 | to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties.”). Additionally, at a more fundamental 5 | level, the petition is comprised of vague allegations of illegality, and I cannot understand 6 | plaintiff's claims. I will give petitioner one opportunity to amend and attempt to remedy these 7 | deficiencies. Given that the petition is deficient, I will deny petitioner’s request for discharge of 8 || custody, ECF No. 5, and issuance of order to show cause, ECF No. 6. 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 request for discharge of custody, ECF No. 5, and issuance of order to show 17 || cause, ECF No. 6, are DENIED. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( q oy — Dated: _ April 30, 2025 q——— 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28