Michael Bruce Anthony McPherson v. Warden

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01885
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

11 MICHAEL BRUCE ANTHONY Case No. 1:25-cv-01885-SKO MCPHERSON, 12 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT Petitioner, TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 14 DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF WARDEN, MANDAMUS 15 Respondent. (21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE) 16

17 18 On December 16, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 1361 in this Court. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that mandamus relief 20 is unavailable. Therefore, the Court will recommend the petition be DISMISSED WITH 21 PREJUDICE. 22 DISCUSSION 23 I. Preliminary Screening of Petition 24 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 26 The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 27 legally “frivolous, malicious,” or that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 1 1915A(b)(1),(2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been 2 paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that ... the action or 3 appeal ... fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 4 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 5 II. Legal Standards Applicable to Petitions for Writ of Mandamus 6 The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court 7 and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 8 of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The federal 9 mandamus statute set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides: “The district courts shall have 10 original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee 11 of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 12 1361. 13 However, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929, 931 (9th 14 Cir. 1998). Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to 15 perform a duty if (1) the petitioner's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer “is 16 ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,” Tagupa v. East-West Center, 17 Inc., 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v. Resor, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th 18 Cir.1970)); and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers' Local Union No. 2375 v. 19 Smith, 695 F.2d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). 20 III. Analysis 21 Petitioner claims he was “granted discharge from custody,” and the Warden owes a duty 22 to release him. (Doc. 1 at 1-2.) Petitioner offers no proof of his claim of discharge. He has 23 attached exhibits to his petition, but none of the exhibits have anything to do with release from 24 custody. Petitioner’s first exhibit is a copy of a “Claimant Grievance Release 25 Acknowledgement” which reflects Petitioner’s grievance or request for reasonable 26 accommodation has been assigned for review and response. (Doc. 1 at 3.) The second exhibit 27 is a copy of Petitioner’s “Grievance/Reasonable Accommodation Request.” (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) 1 reflect entitlement to release from custody, and instead appear to relate to the conditions of 2 Petitioner’s confinement. 3 In any case, mandamus relief is not available because Respondent is not an officer, 4 employee or agency of the United States. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) does not invest a federal 5 district court with the power to compel performance of a state court, judicial officer, or another 6 state official's duties under any circumstances. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 7 U.S. 89, 106 (1984) (11th Amendment prohibits federal district court from ordering state 8 officials to conform their conduct to state law). Thus, a petition for mandamus to compel a 9 state official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. 10 District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161–72 (9th Cir.1991); Robinson v. California Bd. of Prison 11 Terms, 997 F.Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D.Cal.1998) (federal courts are without power to issue writs 12 of mandamus to direct state agencies in the performance of their duties); Dunlap v. Corbin, 532 13 F.Supp. 183, 187 (D.Ariz.1981) (plaintiff sought order from federal court directing state court 14 to provide speedy trial), aff'd without opinion, 673 F.2d 1337 (9th Cir.1982). Therefore, 15 mandamus relief is unavailable. 16 ORDER 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 18 judge to the case. 19 RECOMMENDATION 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 21 WITH PREJUDICE. 22 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 23 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 24 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 25 California. Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and 26 Recommendation, a party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all 27 parties. Id. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 1 cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a 2 party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its 3 CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with 4 specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by 5 the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 6 § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 7 may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th 8 Cir. 2014). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 9 Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of 10 Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: December 17, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27