finding that, generally, a federal court does not have power under the All Writs Act to “issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court litigation”
How later courts described this case
- finding that, generally, a federal court does not have power under the All Writs Act to “issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court litigation”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
ANDREW S. SLOAT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. )
) Case No. 21-cv-03086
ROB JEFFREYS et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MERIT REVIEW OPINION
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge:
Petitioner filed this case pro se from the Graham Correctional
Center in Hillsboro, Illinois. The case is before the Court for a merit
review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute requires the
Court to review a complaint filed by a prisoner to identify the
cognizable claims and to dismiss part or all of the complaint if no
claim is stated. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to provide
Petitioner the mandamus relief he seeks, Petitioner’s complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
In reviewing the complaint, the Court accepts the factual
allegations as true, liberally construing them in Petitioner's favor.
Turley v. Rednour, 729 F.3d 645, 649 (7th Cir. 2013). However,
conclusory statements and labels are insufficient. Enough facts
must be provided to "'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Alexander v. United States, 721 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2013)
(internal citation omitted).
On April 7, 2021, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of
Mandamus (d/e 1). On May 3, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition to
proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 7). Also on May 3, 2021, Petitioner
filed a second petition to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 8) alleging
the same facts but using a different form. In his Petition for a Writ
of Mandamus, Petitioner alleges that he has not received sentencing
credit for a period between August 23, 2020, and January 6, 2021,
during which time he was in custody at the Marion County Jail in
Salem, Illinois. Petitioner requests that this Court order the parties
responsible for the calculation of his time served to credit him for
the allegedly uncredited period.
This Court lacks jurisdiction to provide Petitioner the
mandamus relief he seeks. Federal district courts have original
jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to “compel an officer or
employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a
duty owed to the Petitioner.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Petitioner here has
sued Rob Jeffreys, the Director of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (“IDOC”); Glynn Austin, the Warden of Graham
Correctional Center; an unnamed IDOC employee employed in the
Graham Correctional Center Records Office; and unnamed
members of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board. None of the
Respondents are officers or employees of the United States. In
addition, while the All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to “issue
all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,” the
All Writs Act does not itself create jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a);
Hill v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 405 F.3d 572, 577 (7th Cir. 2005).
Simply put, this Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction to compel
action by state officials. See In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th
Cir. 2001) (finding that, generally, a federal court does not have
power under the All Writs Act to “issue mandamus to a state
judicial officer to control or interfere with state court litigation”);
Davis v. Spoden, No. 09-CV-002-BBC, 2009 WL 483180, at *1 (W.D.
Wis. Feb. 25, 2009) (“Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to
issue a writ of mandamus to direct state courts in the performance
of their duties.”).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1) Petitioner’s second petition to proceed in forma pauperis
(d/e 8) is GRANTED on the grounds of indigency. Petitioner’s initial
petition to proceed in forma pauperis (d/e 7) is DENIED as moot.
2) Petitioner's complaint is dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Because amendment would be futile, the Clerk is DIRECTED to
enter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and
close the case.
ENTER: May 4, 2021
/s/ Sue E. Myerscough
SUE E. MYERSCOUGH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE