Storey v. Marin County Sheriff Department

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 15, 2022
• Docket: 4:22-cv-03939
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHERRI STOREY, Case No. 22-cv-03939-AGT

Plaintiff, SCREENING ORDER v.

MARIN COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, Defendant.

Having granted Sherri Storey’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned now screens her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Storey seeks a writ of mandamus. The writ would require the Marin County Sheriff’s Department to report to the FBI that Steve A. Frankel is possibly the Zo- diac serial killer and has mentally and physically harmed Storey. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 6– 8, 49–50; Dkt. 1-1 at 1. The writ would also require the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute Frankel. See Dkt. 6 ¶¶ 1–7, 19–20, 27, 38–39. The Court cannot grant the relief that Storey seeks. First, a “district court lack[s] jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officers.” Reiner v. Cal- ifornia, 612 F. App’x 473, 474 (9th Cir. 2015). For this reason, the Court cannot issue a writ to compel Marin County to contact the FBI. See also Taylor v. Cal. Dep’t of Just., No. C 08-04776 CW, 2009 WL 1814421, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2009) (“Federal courts are without power to issue mandamus to direct state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in the performance of their duties.”). Second, a district court cannot compel federal prosecutors to investigate or prosecute a particular person. “[P]rivate parties . . . have no legally cognizable in- terest in the prosecutorial decisions of the Federal Government.” Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986). Also, “initiating an investigation or a prosecution is a function of governmental discretion ... .” Goel v. United States, No. 07-2609 (MLC), 2008 WL 2354948, *2 (D.N.J. June 3, 2008). And a district court can issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal official to perform a duty “only if,” among other things, “the official’s duty is nondiscretionary [and] ministerial.” Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir. 2003) (simplified). The relief that Storey seeks is unavailable as a matter of law. Storey may file an amended complaint by July 29, 2022. But if she doesn’t, or if her amended complaint doesn’t state a viable claim for relief, the undersigned will recommend that a district judge dismiss her case. All deadlines in this case are vacated and the Clerk of the Court is instructed not to issue a summons or to serve Storey’s com- plaint. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 15, 2022 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge