The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DREW LOGAN, #Y39057, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 24-cv-01522-SMY
)
LeANN MILLER and )
DONALD SHELTON )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
Drew Logan filed a Petition of Mandamus to challenge the Illinois Parole Review Board’s
finding that he violated the terms of his supervised release. (Doc. 1). The petition is subject to
preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen prisoner
complaints and filter out portions that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim, or name a
party that is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b).
The Petition
Drew Logan is an inmate in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and is
currently incarcerated at Shawnee Correctional Center. He filed a “Petition of Mandamus” in this
district, using a fill-in-the-blank form that references 735 ILCS 5/14-101, et seq. He brings the
mandamus action to challenge the state parole review board’s finding that he violated the terms of
his mandatory supervised release based on allegedly false evidence and a false report in Case No.
23111542201. Logan names two members of the state parole review board as respondents and
seeks a new parole hearing and/or release from custody.
Discussion
Two federal statutes govern writs of mandamus: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
Neither of which authorizes federal courts to grant mandamus relief against state officials. See id.;
see also Leuvano v. State Bar of Tex., No. 11-33-GPM, 2011 WL 334291 at *1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 29,
2011) (citations omitted) (“Mandamus relief is not available against state and local officials,
including state judicial officials.”).
Section 1361 limits federal mandamus jurisdiction to actions against a federal officer or
agency and vests the court with authority to issue writs of mandamus compelling the federal officer
or agency to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Section 1651 only
allows federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective
jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(emphasis
added). The courts possess no general power to issue writs, and the statute does not enlarge that
jurisdiction. Id.; In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2001).
Here, Logan’s Petition does not establish the elements necessary to support a writ of
mandamus against state officials (the fact that he used a state form and invoked 735 ILCS 5/14-
101 et seq. suggests he may have intended to file his Petition in state court, not federal court).
Relief is not available under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and 1651, and this federal court lacks jurisdiction
over the Petition.
Disposition
The Petition of Mandamus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Petitioner is ADVISED that the dismissal does not count as one of his three “strikes” under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal also does not preclude Petitioner from
challenging the parole board’s decision in another forum, including state court.
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED; the
Clerk of Court need not undertake further efforts to collect a filing fee. The Clerk’s Office is
DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 9/10/2024
s/ Staci M. Yandle__________
STACI M. YANDLE
United States District Judge