WILLIAMS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

ANTHONY T. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 4:24-cv-485-WS/MJF

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that

the District Court deny Plaintiff’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” Doc.

9.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Writ of

Mandamus,” Doc. 1. After review of the petition, the undersigned

determined that Plaintiff intended to initiate a civil action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 3; see also N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.7(A) (defining a civil-

rights action); Torres v. Miami-Dade Cnty., Fla., 734 F. App’x 688, 691

(11th Cir. 2018) (“[F]ederal courts must sometimes look beyond the labels

used in a pro se party’s complaint and focus on the content and substance

of the allegations.”).

The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to file a complaint utilizing the

Northern District’s civil-rights complaint form. Plaintiff initially

complied, Doc. 4, but then filed an amended complaint that did not use

the court-approved form, Doc. 7. The undersigned has ordered Plaintiff

to amend the complaint using the court-approved form. Doc. 10.

In addition to filing the amended complaint, Plaintiff filed another

“Petition for Writ of Mandamus.” Doc. 9. The petition repeats the same

facts, complaints, and constitutional arguments included in his initial

pleading, Doc. 1. Plaintiff requests the court issue orders to Chris Lane,

Warden of Suwannee Correctional Institution, and John Does 1–100, to:

1. set up a day and time that Plaintiff can use the chapel to

practice his faith with other members of his faith;

2. provide Plaintiff a religious diet;

3. provide personal hygiene items, weekly or as-needed;

4. require compliance with Health Department mandated

temperature controls for serving food;

5. require compliance by the kitchen staff for washing,

cleaning, and drying trays;

6. place Plaintiff on law library call out weekly;

7. allow Plaintiff to set up attorney calls and visits;

8. allow retrieval of all mail from family, loved ones, and

friends;

9. allow access to “the kiosk” in confinement to receive mail

from family, loved ones, and friends;

10. require immediate issuance of “tablets” to those inmates

who do not have one;

11. require immediate printouts of all emails sent to inmates

through “the kiosk”;

12. require a policy report from Defendants on interrupting

and stopping the sell of drugs, drug use, and violence at

Suwannee CI;

13. require a non-retaliation, non-harassment, non-violence,

non-disciplinary reaction from Defendants, and allow

Plaintiff freedom of movement;

14. require a weekly report from Plaintiff about Defendants’

compliance with all court orders;

15. print off and post on bulletin boards in each dorm or

compound the court’s orders/directives regarding

Plaintiff’s requests;

16. direct Defendants to immediately adhere to its grooming

policy and provide clippers and shaver to Plaintiff three-

times a week;

17. cease and desist the use of profanity or abusive language

towards Plaintiff or in Plaintiff’s presence;

18. place surveillance cameras in the “Sally Port area”;

19. require immediate medical care for all inmates in need of

medical attention, especially in confinement;

20. immediately start providing carbon-copies of all grievances

and requests filed by inmates; and

21. require the immediate scheduling of a dental appointment

for Plaintiff.

See Doc. 9 at 5–7.

II. DISCUSSION

The District Court should deny Plaintiff’s petition for at least two

reasons. First, the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, does not

permit relief against state actors. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Second, a federal

statute—42 U.S.C. § 1983—addresses the particular constitutional

issues raised in this lawsuit. Thus, the civil rights statute, and not the

All Writs Act, controls. See Penn. Bureau of Corr. v. U.S. Marshals Serv.,

474 U.S. 34, 43 (1985) (The All Writs Act, now codified as 28 U.S.C. §

1651(a), “is a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not

otherwise covered by statute. Where a statute specifically addresses the

particular issue at hand, it is that authority, and not the All Writs Act,

that is controlling.”).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff’s “Petition for

Writ of Mandamus.” Doc. 9.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 6th day of February, 2025.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to the

undersigned to address preliminary matters and to

make recommendations regarding dispositive matters.

See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed

R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to these proposed findings

and recommendations must be filed within fourteen

(14) days of the date of the report and recommendation.

Any different deadline that may appear on the

electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only

and does not control. An objecting party must serve a

copy of its objections upon all other parties. A party

who fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or

recommendations contained in a report and

recommendation waives the right to challenge on

appeal the district court’s order based on unobjected-

to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1;

28 U.S.C. § 636.