Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-1971-R
January 28, 2004
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: This is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by a federal prisoner.
B. Parties: Petitioner, an inmate in FCI Seagoville, names the State of Texas as respondent.
C. Procedural History: On September 2, 2003, the Court received the instant petition for writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an order to compel the state courts to perform mandatory, purely ministerial duties. (Writ of Mandamus at 2.) No process has been issued in this case.
II. PRELIMINARY SCREENING
As a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity, petitioner's writ is subject to preliminary screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1998). That section provides 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. MANDAMUS
"The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty." Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Section 1361 provides that "[t]he 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." Under this section, the Court may only compel federal actors or agencies to act. This Court lacks "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).
Section 1361 grants no jurisdiction to this Court to dictate action by state judicial officers or courts. This Court is therefore without power to order the state courts to perform mandatory, purely ministerial duties. 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. § 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).
IV. 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. § 1915A(b).
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Sews. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).