Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 02-2168 SECTION: "R"
August 16, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is petitioner Perry Taylor's Writ of Mandamus. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies petitioner's writ.
I. Background
Perry Taylor is a state prisoner in Louisiana. He was convicted of aggravated burglary following a bench trial in April 1997. Petitioner is currently appealing his conviction in the Louisiana courts. At this time, an application for supervisory review of a January 16, 2002 decision of the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal is pending before the Louisiana Supreme Court. Petitioner asks this Court to order the Louisiana Supreme Court to render a decision in his appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
II. Discussion
A. Legal Standard
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) (ii), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B) (ii); see also Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d 1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal is proper "only if it appears that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations." Bradley, 157 F.3d at 1025 (quoting McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir. 1995)); see also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292 (1976) (a complaint can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief)
B. Writ of Mandamus
A writ of mandamus is an "extraordinary remedy." Adams v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 237 F.3d 538, 542 (5th Cir. 2001). 28 U.S.C. § 1361 grants district court's original jurisdiction over "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." 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). As the plain language of the statute indicates, Section 1361 grants district courts jurisdiction over mandamus actions directed at federal officers. See Newsome v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2002 WL 1792096, *2 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). Further, it is clearly established that federal courts lack 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 a petitioner seeks. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971); Moye v. Clerk, Dekaib County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973); Haggard v. Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1386 (6th Cir. 1970); Demos v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Norman v. Louisiana Supreme Court, 2001 WL 881298, *1 (E.D. La. 2001)
Here, the only relief petitioner seeks is an order from this Court ordering the Louisiana Supreme Court to render a decision on his application for supervisory review. Therefore, because the Court cannot grant the relief petitioner seeks, the Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed with prejudice under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).