(HC) Solorio v. Newsom

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 GUILLERMO SOLORIO, No. 2:24-CV-2408-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., and 15 Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS — 16 — 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 18 mandamus. 19 This action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern 20 District of California and transferred to this Court on September 4, 2024. The operative pleading 21 is captioned to the Solano County Superior Court and seeks mandamus relief under California 22 Law. See ECF No. 1. The mandamus petition names state officials only. See id. For the reasons 23 discussed below, the Court recommends that the action be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, such 24 dismissal to be without prejudice to re-filing in the Solano County Superior Court. 25 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 , the Supreme Court and all other federal courts may issue 26 all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a). 27 The statute, however, does not provide jurisdiction for the federal courts to issue writs directed to 28 state courts or state officials. See Demos v. United States Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160 , 1161-62 1 |} (9th Cir. 1991). Moreover, the federal transfer statute at 28 U.S.C. § 1631 does not permit this 2 | Court to transfer Petitioner's case to the Solano County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 ; 3 || see also Kier Bros. Invs. V. White, 943 F. Supp. 1, 4 (Dist. D.C. 1996) (stating 28 U.S.C. § 1631 4 | “only authorizes transfer to those federal courts defined in 28 U.S.C. § 610”). The courts listed in 5 || § 610 are the federal courts of appeals, the federal district courts including those for the District 6 || of the Canal Zone, the District of Guan, the District of the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as the 7 || United States Court of Federal Claims and the United States Court of International Trade. See 28 8 | US.C. § 610. 9 Because this Court lacks jurisdiction and because the action may not be transferred 10 || directly to the Solano County Superior Court, the petition should be dismissed. 11 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned orders and recommends as follows: 12 1. It is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a 13 || District Judge to this case. 14 2. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of 15 || jurisdiction, such dismissal to be without prejudice to re-filing in the Solano County Superior 16 | Court. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 18 || Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within 14 days 19 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 20 || with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 21 || Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 22 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). — 23 — 24 || Dated: September 19, 2024 Co 2 DENNIS M. COTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 27 — — 28 —