Samm v. Superior Court of Alameda County

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 10, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02062
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 STERLING SAMM, Case No. 25-cv-02062-TLT

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, et al., 11 Respondents.

12 13 Petitioner is a state prisoner at the California Health Care Facility proceeding without 14 counsel in this action seeking a “writ of mandate” pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, 15 which authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 16 respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). 17 He has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 18 Petitioner asks this Court to order the Alameda County Superior Court to set aside its 19 denial of petitioner’s motion for entry of default judgment in his case in that court, number 20 RG20078772, Samm v. People of the State of California. This petition arises out of the same state- 21 court proceeding as petitioner’s prior case in this Court, No. 22-cv-02434, in which he sought an 22 order requiring the state court to vacate its order setting aside the entry of default judgment. 23 As with petitioner’s prior attempt to ask this Court to direct the proceedings in state court, 24 this Court does not have the jurisdiction to order the relief petitioner seeks. “[T]he All Writs Act” 25 does not “‘operate to confer jurisdiction . . . since it may be invoked by the district court only in 26 aid of jurisdiction which it already has’.” Benson v. State Bd. of Parole & Prob., 384 F.2d 238, 27 239–40 (9th Cir. 1967) (quoting Stafford v. Superior Ct. of Cal., In & For Los Angeles Cnty., 272 1 relief—extraordinary or otherwise—is contingent on that court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over 2 the case or controversy.” United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 911 (2009). To the extent 3 petitioner seeks to overturn his criminal conviction in state court through this civil state-court case 4 against former Yolo County prosecutor Kyle Hasapes, he can only do so through habeas corpus 5 || pursuant to 22 United States Code § 2254. “[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or 6 || duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled 7 to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a 8 || writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Habeas is the “exclusive 9 || vehicle” for any claim that petitioner seeks to bring “if success in that action would necessarily 10 demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 11 (9th Cir. 2016). 12 In addition, a petition for a writ of federal mandamus to compel a state court or official to 13 take or refrain from some action is frivolous as a matter of law. See Demos v. U.S. District Court, 14 || 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 3 15 2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would order state trial court to give petitioner 16 access to certain trial transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction 3 17 petition). Petitioner cannot obtain a federal writ of mandamus compelling the Superior Court of 18 || Alameda County or any other state court to take action or refrain from taking action. Petitioner’s 19 action is therefore dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: July 10, 2025 22 SS TRINA ON 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28