Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-cv-1093 SECTION P
02-06-2018
ANDRE DERRELL LEE D.O.C. #325813 v. MAURICE HICKS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES
JUDGMENT
After an independent review of the record, a de novo determination of the issues, and a consideration of the objections filed, the Court determines that the findings of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation are correct under the applicable law. Federal courts use the writ of mandamus "to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so." Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (emphasis added); In re Brown, 346 F.2d 903, 910 (5th Cir. 1965) (holding that "[o]rderly procedure . . . forbade" one district judge "to interfere with the handling of a case" assigned to another district judge). Because one district judge cannot "deny another district judge his or her jurisdiction," Fabuluje v. Sanders, No. 3:01-CV-992-D, 2001 WL 880688, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 23, 2001), this Court cannot compel Judge Hicks to rule upon the Plaintiff's pending habeas petition.
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for mandamus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 be and hereby is DENIED, and that the above captioned matter be and hereby is DISMISSED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED this 6th day of February, 2018.
/s/_________
ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE