From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poullard v. Sharp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
Jun 23, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0965 (W.D. La. Jun. 23, 2014)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0965

06-23-2014

JOHN POULLARD v. JUDGE ALVIN SHARP


JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES


MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES


MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff John Poullard's ("Poullard") pro se Motion to Vacate [Doc Nos. 14 &15] the Court's May 28, 2014 Ruling and Judgment. [Doc Nos. 10 & 11]. Poullard claims that the Ruling and Judgment are contrary to the law because this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate his mandamus action. [Doc. No. 15, p. 2].

Title 28, United States Code Section 1361, cited by Plaintiff as authority to pursue this action, states: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." Poullard has, from the outset, made it clear that he seeks an order of this Court ". . . ordering the State District court Judge to act and allow petitioner his United States Constitutional Rights 1st and 14th [Amendment] access to court to prosecute his supplement petition for damages claims and to stop the violation of access to court and due process of law and arbitrarily contrary action to that of the judiciary." [Doc. No. 1, pp. 19-20]. As previously noted, the federal mandamus statute is clear, as is the jurisprudence interpreting the statue - ". . . a federal district court is not authorized to grant relief in the nature of mandamus relief to direct state officials in the performance of their duties and functions." See Emerson v. Owens, 472 Fed. App'x 308 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973)); see also Nabelek v. Collins, 48 Fed. App'x 104 (5th Cir. 2002).

Further, to the extent that Poullard relies upon the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §1651, such reliance is also misplaced. Section 1651does not provide an independent basis for the exercise of jurisdiction by the federal district courts. Indeed, the statute merely authorizes those courts to issue commands in the form of writs, "in aid of their respective jurisdictions," and which are necessary to effectuate orders previously issued where jurisdiction has otherwise been obtained. Texas v. Real Parties in Interest, 259 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1115, 122 S.Ct. 924, 151 L.Ed.2d 887 (2002); see also Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 119 S. Ct. 1538, 143 L.Ed.2d 720 (1999). Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Poullard's Motion to Vacate [Doc. Nos. 14 & 15] is DENIED.

MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 23rd day of June, 2014.

__________

ROBERT G. JAMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Poullard v. Sharp

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION
Jun 23, 2014
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0965 (W.D. La. Jun. 23, 2014)
Case details for

Poullard v. Sharp

Case Details

Full title:JOHN POULLARD v. JUDGE ALVIN SHARP

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

Date published: Jun 23, 2014

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0965 (W.D. La. Jun. 23, 2014)