Opinion
No. 3:02-CV-2146-G
October 21, 2002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nature of the Case: Petitioner has filed a "Motion to Obtain Document and Trial Record In Forma Pauperis." The Court construes the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus filed by a state inmate. B. Parties: Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division. Respondent is the State of Texas.
The caption and body of the motion suggest that petitioner meant to seek the documents directly from the state court. Because he filed his motion in federal court, however, the Court construes the motion as a request to compel the state court to provide the documents to him.
C. Procedural History: On October 2, 2002, petitioner filed the instant motion wherein he seeks "copies of Document and Trial records" pertaining to his state criminal action so that he can apparently prepare a state habeas petition. (Mot. at 1-2.) The requested documents "are in the possession of the Court Reporter of and the 203rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, [(hereinafter simply referred to as the state court)] or in the files of the Clerk." ( Id. at 5.) Because petitioner essentially seeks to have this Court order the state court or its officers or employees to provide documents, the Court construes the motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. No process has been issued in this case.
II. PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The Court has permitted plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis. His complaint is thus subject to sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). As a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, plaintiffs complaint is also subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A regardless of whether he proceeds in forma pauperis. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). Both § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(b) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds the complaint "frivolous" or "malicious," if it "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted," or if it "seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief."
A complaint is frivolous when it "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Id. at 327. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes "fantastic or delusional scenarios." Id. at 327-28. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Smith v. Winter, 782 F.2d 508, 511-12 (5th Cir. 1986); Henrise v. Horvath, 94 F. Supp.2d 768, 769 (N.D. Tex. 2000).
III. FINDINGS
Petitioner appears to seek an order compelling the state court or its officers or employees to provide documents and trial records to him so that he can proceed with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. ( See Mot. at 1-5.) Although federal courts properly construe such a request as a writ of mandamus, they lack "the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought." Moye v. Clerk, Dekalb County Sup. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973) (construing a similar request as a writ of mandamus and affirming its denial). Thus, this Court is without power to enter the requested order. Consequently, the instant petition lacks an arguable basis in law and should be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). See Santee v. Quinlan, 115 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir. 1997) (affirming dismissal of petition for writ of mandamus as frivolous because federal courts lack the power to mandamus state courts in the performance of their duties).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby recommends that the instant petition for writ of mandamus be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b). Such dismissal will count as a "strike" or "prior occasion" within the meaning 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (g).
Section 1915(g), which is commonly known as the "three-strikes" provision, provides:
In no event shall a prisoner bring a civil action or appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding under this section, if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.