(HC) Chatman v. The State of California

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 RICKEY LEE CHATMAN, JR., No. 1:21-cv-00802-DAD-JLT (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. ACTION BROUGHT UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1361 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. No. 5) 15 Respondent. [16] 17 Petitioner Rickey Lee Chatman, Jr., is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . The matter was 19 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local 20 Rule 302. 21 On June 4, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 22 recommending that the pending petition be dismissed because mandamus relief under § 1361 is 23 only available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty owed to the petitioner 24 where petitioner’s claim is “clear and certain” and the officer’s duty is “ministerial and so plainly 25 prescribed as to be free from doubt.” (Doc. No. 5 at 1–2) (quoting Tagupa v. East-West Ctr., Inc., [26] 642 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1981)). The pending findings and recommendations outlined that 27 petitioner may be attempting to seek habeas relief from his judgment of conviction obtained in 28 state court, and federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus compelling the 1 | performance of a state court or judicial officer of a state court. (Doc. No. 5 at 2) (citing Demos v. 2 | U.S. District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-72 (9th Cir. 1991)). The pending findings and 3 || recommendations were served on petitioner with notice that any objections thereto were to be 4 | filed within thirty (30) days of the service. Ud. at 2-3.) On July 15, 2021, petitioner filed 5 | objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) 6 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(©), the court has conducted a 7 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 8 | objections and declaration, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are 9 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 10 In his objections, petitioner primarily reiterates his arguments regarding why he should be 11 || granted the requested relief. (Doc. No. 6.) Petitioner attempts to circumvent the issues identified 12 || by the pending findings and recommendations by asserting the court is empowered to adjudicate 13 || this claim because he has alleged federal constitutional violations. (/d. at 10.) Thus, petitioner’s 14 | objections do not meaningfully dispute the magistrate judge’s finding that the pending petition for 15 | a writ of mandamus must be dismissed because no relief sought by petitioner can be granted 16 | under 28 U.S.C. § 1361.1 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued June 4, 2021 (Doc. No. 5) are adopted 19 in full; 20 2. The petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (Doc. No. 1) is 21 dismissed; and 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 23 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ August 16, 2021 al, Al 4 7 ye 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [27] ' The denial of the pending petition for a writ of mandamus is without prejudice to the filing of a 28 | petition for federal habeas relief if otherwise appropriate.