Howard v. Belmont County Common Pleas Court

Full title: DEMITRIEUS HOWARD, Petitioner, v. BELMONT COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Jun 23, 2009

Civil Action 2:09-CV-402 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 23, 2009)

Opinion

Civil Action 2:09-CV-402.

June 23, 2009

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NORAH KING, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner has filed a document entitled "Petition for Writ of Procedend Pursuant to All Writs Act," by which petitioner asks that this Court order the respondent state court to rule on a motion pending in petitioner's state criminal case.¹ Petitioner has also asked that he be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs.

1 That motion appears to request that petitioner be granted all the good time credit to which he claims entitlement.

Petitioner is GRANTED leave to proceed without prepayment of fees or costs. All judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. However, the Court concludes that the action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Federal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus directing state courts or their officers in the performance of their duties. Haggard v. State of Tenn., 421 F.2d 1384 (6^th Cir. 1970); Seyka v. Corrigan, 46 Fed. Appx. 260, 2002 WL 2026215 (6^th Cir., August 27, 2002 (same); Woods v. Weaver, 13 Fed. Appx. 304, 2001 WL 700806 (6^th Cir., June 15, 2006) (same); Wallace v. Hayse, 25 F.3d 1052 (table), 1994 WL 194244 (6^th Cir., May 16, 1994) (unpublished) (same).

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within ten (10) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).