(HC) Patino v. Price ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 PHILLIP PATINO, Case No. 1:24-cv-00240-SAB-HC 11 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. MANDATE 13 BRANDON PRICE, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT 14 Respondent. JUDGE 15 16 On February 26, 2024, Petitioner, a civil detainee, filed the instant petition for writ of 17 mandate, naming the Executive Director, dental department personnel, and other employees of 18 Coalinga State Hospital as Respondents. (ECF No. 1 at 1–2.1) Petitioner complains of his dental 19 care (or lack thereof) and alleges elder abuse. (Id. at 2–3.) Petitioner requests the Court to order 20 an independent dentist/oral surgeon, who is not affiliated nor contracted with Coalinga State 21 Hospital, be retained to consult, examine, and render treatment to Petitioner. (Id. at 4.) 22 The Supreme Court has “repeatedly has observed that the writ of mandamus is an 23 extraordinary remedy, to be reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. 24 v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988). The federal mandamus statute provides: “The 25 district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel 26 an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the 27 plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has held: 1 Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty if (1) the plaintiff’s claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the 2 officer is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. 3 4 Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation and citations omitted). 5 “Accordingly, to establish his entitlement to mandamus-type relief, [Petitioner] ha[s] to plead 6 that these three requirements [a]re met.” Plaskett v. Wormuth, 18 F.4th 1072, 1081 (9th Cir. 7 2021). 8 “Federal courts have no jurisdiction or authority to issue mandamus to direct non-federal 9 entities or officials in the performance of their duties.” Andrade v. Calif. Dep’t of Corr., No. 10 5:21-CV-00202-FMO-JC, 2021 WL 412267, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2021) (collecting cases). 11 See Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (“The federal courts are 12 without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the 13 performance of their duties . . . .”); Fox v. City of Pasadena, 78 F.2d 948 (9th Cir. 1935) (“[I]t is 14 sought to compel the officers of the City to perform their duty under the statutes of the state and 15 under the charter of the City which regulates those duties. This is the function of a writ of 16 mandamus over which the District Court has no jurisdiction.”). Here, the extraordinary remedy 17 of mandamus is not available because the named Respondents are not federal officers, 18 employees, or agencies, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to direct 19 non-federal officials. 20 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of 21 mandamus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 22 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign this action to a District 23 Judge. 24 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 25 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 26 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 27 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 1 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 2 | District Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 3 | § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 4 | result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 5 | (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Zl Se g | Dated: _ May 7, 2024 OF 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28