Manning v. Presiding Judge

[8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE [10] 11 JEREMY MANNING, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-02177-TL-MLP 12 Petitioner, ORDER ON REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION [13] PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE CRIMINAL 14 DIVISION OF KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, [15] Respondent. [17] 18 Petitioner Jeremy Manning has filed a “Motion for Writ of Mandamus.” Dkt. No. 4 19 (sealed). This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable 20 Michelle L. Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge (the “R&R”), which recommends denial of 21 the motion. Dkt. No. 5. Having reviewed the R&R, Petitioner’s objections (Dkt. No. 6), and the 22 relevant record, the Court ADOPTS the R&R and OVERRULES the objections. 23 // 24 // 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner is a federal prisoner who is currently detained at the Federal Detention Center 3 in SeaTac, Washington, where he is awaiting trial on a case pending before another court in this 4 District. See United States v. Manning, No. CR22-121 (W.D. Wash. filed Aug. 9, 2022). 5 In his motion, Petitioner outlines complaints regarding a pending state-court criminal 6 case (No. 24-1-02939-3 SEA).1 See Dkt. No. 4 at 4–9. He states that the attorney appointed to 7 represent him in that case “[made] it clear she had no intention [of] coming to see him, looking at 8 any evidence, or do[ing] anything on this case.” Id. at 5. On September 27, 2024, Petitioner sent 9 a letter to the Chief Judge of the King County Superior Court, the Respondent here, requesting 10 new counsel or, in the alternative, to proceed pro se. Id. at 5; see also id. at 42–46 (letter). 11 Having not received a reply, on November 12, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed pro se. 12 See id. at 5; see also id. at 48–62 (motion). As of filing the instant motion, Petitioner had not 13 received a response to his letter or a ruling on his motion. Id. at 5. Petitioner argues that 14 Respondent “is denying [his] right to access the court by ignoring his motions and is denying his 15 right to speedy trial by ignoring his motions and by not making a ‘diligent, good-faith effort’ to 16 bring the accused [Petitioner] before the court before trial.” Id. at 8. Petitioner ultimately 17 requests “a motion for writ of mandamus informing the Defendant that he/she is in violation of 18 federal law and the U.S. Constitution” and to “[f]urthermore instruct the Defendant to comply 19 with federal law and the U.S. Constitution in a timely manner.” Id. at 8–9. 20 The R&R recommends dismissal of the action. See Dkt. No. 5 at 3. The R&R states that 21 “a federal court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court.” Id. at 2 (first [23] 1 Petitioner also provides details regarding his pending criminal matter and a state-court criminal matter (No. 21-103075-3 SEA) that was dismissed on August 9, 2022. See Dkt. No. 4 at 1–4; see also id. at 11–13 (motion for 24 dismissal and order of dismissal). These allegations are not material to Petitioner’s instant motion. 1 citing Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 925 F.2d 1160 , 1161–62 (9th Cir. 1991); then citing Robinson v. 2 Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998)). The R&R concludes that, 3 “[a]s this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue such a writ, this action should be dismissed.” Id. at 3. 4 Petitioner filed timely objections. See Dkt. No. 6. First, Petitioner objects that the 5 authority relied upon by the R&R—Demos and Robinson—are inapposite. See id. at 1–5. He 6 states that unlike in those cases, the R&R here “overlooks [Respondent’s] violations of federal 7 law and U.S. Constitution.” Id. at 3. He further states that unlike in those cases, Respondent here 8 is an “individual,” not a court or agency. Id. at 4. Second, Petitioner objects that the R&R relies 9 on “mistaken assumption[s]” about Petitioner’s motion. See id. at 5–7. “As Petitioner is only 10 seeking to educate, inform, and encourage,” he explains, “this in no way compels the Respondent 11 to do anything.” Id. at 6. 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD 13 A district court has jurisdiction to review a magistrate judge’s report and 14 recommendation on dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The district court “shall make 15 a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 16 recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. 17 P. 72 (b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s 18 disposition that has been properly objected to.”). “The district judge may accept, reject, or 19 modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 20 magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). A 21 party properly objects when the party files “specific written objections” to the report and 22 recommendation as required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2). 23 // 24 // 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 “A district court has authority to issue all writs, including writs of mandamus, which are 3 ‘necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and 4 principles of law.’” Basra v. Keenan, No. C23-1561, 2024 WL 518946 , at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 5 1, 2024) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a)). In addition, “[t]he Federal Mandamus Act ‘provides 6 district courts with mandamus power “to compel an officer or employee of the United States or 7 any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”’” Gypsum Resources, LLC v. Clark 8 County, 674 F. Supp. 3d 985 , 1010 n.12 (D. Nev. 2023) (quoting Indep. Mining Co. v. Babbitt, [9] 105 F.3d 502 , 507 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1361 )). However, “[t]he federal courts 10 are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in 11 the performance of their duties[.]” Id. (quoting Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 12 1966)); accord, e.g., Stone v. Pfeiffer, No. C21-1461, 2024 WL 3509617 , at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 13 23, 2024); Graham v. Hawaii, No. C23-212, 2023 WL 3505353 , at *2 (D. Haw. May 17, 2023). 14 Thus, to the extent Petitioner’s motion requests a writ of mandamus against 15 Respondent—a state judicial officer—the motion must fail. Further, contrary to Petitioner’s 16 assertion (see Dkt. No. 6 at 3), the R&R need not make any statement on Petitioner’s 17 constitutional claims where Petitioner cannot identify an available remedy were he to prevail on 18 those claims; the motion fails on that basis alone. And the fact that Respondent is an individual 19 and not a state court or agency (see Dkt. No. 6 at 3–5) does not materially distinguish this matter 20 from Demos and Robinson—which reaffirm a federal court’s limited authority to issue writs of 21 mandamus—and does not disturb the other authority detailed above. Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161; 22 Robinson, 997 F. Supp. at 1308. 23 Finally, Petitioner makes clear in his objections that he does not seek any type of 24 injunctive relief from this Court. See Dkt. No. 6 at 6. He states repeatedly that he simply seeks to 1 “[e]nlighten,” “inform,” “encourage,” and “educate” Respondent regarding applicable law. Id. 2 Thus, to the extent Petitioner is abandoning even his apparent request for a writ of mandamus, he 3 does not explain the basis for this informational relief, which does not appear to be a cognizable 4 request of the Court. 5 IV. CONCLUSION 6 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 7 (1) The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 5) is ADOPTED. 8 (2) Petitioner’s “Motion for Writ of Mandamus” (Dkt. No. 4) is DENIED. 9 (3) This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 10 (4) The Clerk SHALL send copies of this Order to Petitioner and to Judge Peterson. 11 Dated this 27th day of March 2025. [12] A [13] Tana Lin United States District Judge