Opinion
4:21-cv-501-MW/MJF
01-12-2022
KEVIN BURNS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before this Court is Plaintiff's pros se petition for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff has not paid the requisite filing fee nor has he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauerpis. Regardless, it is apparent from the petition that the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
The District Court referred this case to the undersigned to address preliminary matters and to make recommendations regarding dispositive matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.
In his petition, Plaintiff requests that the District Court enter an order directing state officials to retain the criminal case file and docket for Plaintiff's 2001 criminal conviction. Doc. 1 at 1; see generally Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.430 (delineating the policy for retention of court records).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which codified the common-law writ of mandamus, district courts “have original jurisdiction . . . to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Mandamus relief is available only to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty when (1) the petitioner has a clear right to relief; (2) the respondent has a clear duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Serrano v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)).
“These three threshold requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Am. Hosp. Ass'n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see Jones v. Alexander, 609 F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1980) (“The test for jurisdiction is whether mandamus would be an appropriate means of relief.”). Additionally, federal courts “have no authority to issue” a writ of mandamus “to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” Cahill v. Kendall, 202 F.Supp.2d 1322, 1330 (S.D. Ala. 2002). When a petition seeks to have a district court compel action from state officials, not federal officials, the district court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief. Lawrence v. Miami-Dade Cnty. State Attorney Office, 272 Fed.Appx. 781, 781 (11th Cir. 2008); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986); Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973).
In this case, because the District Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus should be dismissed. See Brown v. Lewis, 361 Fed.Appx. 51, 56 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that:
1. Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus, Doc. 1, be DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The clerk of court close the case file.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the report and recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.