(HC) Roberson v. Sacramento County Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARLON ROBERSON, No. 2:19-cv-02325-TLN-GGH 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Marlon Roberson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a 18 petition for writ of mandamus. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 5, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 21 were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 3.) Petitioner has 23 filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 5.) 24 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 25 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 26 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 27 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 28 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 6 judge’s analysis. 7 Petitioner objects to the Findings and Recommendations and argues that “a writ of 8 mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal to compel the performance of an act 9 which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to compel 10 the admission of a party to the use and enjoinment of a right to which the party is entitled and 11 from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal.” (ECF No. 5 at 4.) 12 However, the California Superior Court is not an “inferior tribunal” in relation to this Court under 13 Cal. Code Civ. P. § 1085, and, as the magistrate judge correctly notes, this Court “lacks 14 jurisdiction to compel state courts to comply with” Petitioner’s requests. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed December 5, 2019, are adopted in full; 17 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED; and 18 3. This case is closed. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 15, 2020 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28