(HC) Jones v. Phifer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00755-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 v. MANDAMUS 14 PHIFER, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Jeremy Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 18 mandamus and request for emergency injunctive relief. As this Court does not have jurisdiction 19 to entertain the instant petition, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed. 20 I. 21 DISCUSSION 22 In the petition, Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus and emergency injunctive relief 23 against the warden and various staff members to refrain from imposing any disciplinary actions 24 or retaliating against Petitioner for following his doctor’s instructions to lie down in a dark and 25 quiet room when experiencing the onset of a migraine. (ECF No. 1 at 1).1 26 “The writ of mandamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy ‘reserved for really 27 extraordinary causes.’” In re Van Dusen, 654 F.3d 838, 840 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ex parte 1 Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 2 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (“This Court repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an 3 extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations.”). 4 The federal mandamus statute provides: “The district courts shall have original 5 jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the 6 United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 7 (emphasis added). “The federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct 8 state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties . . . .” Clark v. 9 Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966). See also Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d 10 Cir. 1988) (“The federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials . . . .”). 11 The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is not available in the instant case because the 12 named Respondent is not an officer, employee, or agency of the United States, and the Court 13 lacks jurisdiction to compel action by California state officials. Accordingly, the petition for writ 14 of mandamus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Further, the Court finds that Petitioner 15 is not entitled to emergency injunctive relief. See Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th 16 Cir. 1983) (“A federal court may issue an injunction [only] if it has personal jurisdiction over the 17 parties and subject matter jurisdiction over the claim[.]”). 18 The Court notes that it appears Petitioner may be attempting to challenge his conditions 19 of confinement as unconstitutional. Such claims may be more appropriately alleged in civil 20 actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which “creates a private right of action against individuals 21 who, acting under color of state law, violate federal constitutional or statutory rights.” Hall v. 22 City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation mark omitted) 23 (quoting Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 107 (9th Cir. 2001)). See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 24 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973) (“[A] § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state prisoner who is 25 making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life.”). The Court further notes 26 that mandamus and prisoner civil rights actions differ in a variety of respects, such as filing fees,2 27 2 The filing fee for § 1983 civil rights cases is $350, and Petitioner is required to pay the full amount by way of deductions from income to Petitioner’s trust account, even if granted in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. wOOe UV EAR SMU OPI ee AY VI 1 | exhaustion requirements,’ and restrictions on future filings (e.g., the Prison Litigation Reform 2 | Act’s three-strikes rule). A dismissal of Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus would not 3 | preclude Petitioner from filing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the future, and this Court takes 4 | no position on the merits of such claims. 5 I. 6 RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER 7 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 8 | writ of mandamus and declaratory relief be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 9 Further, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to randomly ASSIGN a District Court 10 | Judge to the present matter. 11 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 12 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 13 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 15 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 16 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 17 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 18 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 19 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 20 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ July 15, 2020 [spe ey 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 3 Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with 27 | respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. § 1983], or any other Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, 28 MoI other correctional facility until such administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. §