Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-01114 (F-Deck)
06-10-2016
Airrick Bey, Petitioner, v. State of Michigan, Respondent.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 6/14/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a mandamus action against the State of Michigan. He seeks "to enforce the Default Judgment filed on 2/25/16 as the Writ of Discovery/Averment of Jurisdiction . . . ." Pet. at 1. Petitioner lists a case number not of this Court. Petitioner's accompanying application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted for the purpose of dismissing this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). This Court has no authority to issue the writ against the State of Michigan or to enforce the judgment of a court of that State. See Noble v. Cain, 123 Fed. Appx. 151, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) ("mandamus relief . . . is not available to federal courts to direct state officials in the performance of their duties and functions") (citations omitted); United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 85 (D.D.C. 2011) (district courts "generally lack[] appellate jurisdiction over other judicial bodies, and cannot exercise appellate mandamus over other courts") (citing Lewis v. Green, 629 F. Supp. 546, 553 (D.D.C. 1986)). Hence, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Date: June 10, 2016