Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

HOSIE WILLIAMS, ) CASE NO. 1:25-cv-1639

)

Petitioner, ) JUDGE CHARLES E. FLEMING

)

v. )

)

CORRECTIONAL RECEPTION ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

CENTER, et al., ) ORDER

)

Respondents. )

Before the Court is Petitioner Hosie Williams’s pro se Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(“Petition”). (ECF No. 1). For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is currently in state custody as an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional

Facility. (See ECF No. 1). The Petition states that he is suffering from a number of medical

conditions and he seeks an order from the Court requiring Respondents to provide him with

additional medical testing and a more comprehensive treatment plan. (Id. at PageID #6–30).

Although he was no longer housed in the Lorain County Jail or the Corrections Receptions Center

when he filed the Petition, Petitioner seeks mandamus relief with respect to the Corrections

Reception Center and two medical professionals at the Lorain County Jail. (Id. at PageID #2–4).

He also seeks mandamus relief from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and

the Ohio Attorney General. (Id.).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court is expressly authorized to dismiss any civil action filed by a prisoner

seeking relief from a governmental entity, as soon as possible after docketing, if the court

concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if the

plaintiff seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A; Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1494, at *5 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000);

see Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536–37, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 39 L. Ed. 2d 577 (1974) (citing

numerous Supreme Court cases for the proposition that attenuated or unsubstantial claims divest

the district court of jurisdiction); In re Bendectin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 300 (6th Cir. 1988)

(recognizing that federal question jurisdiction is divested by unsubstantial claims). Complaints

for a writ of mandamus are subject to the screening functions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Misiak v.

Freeh, 22 F. App’x 384, 386 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The [Prisoner Litigation Reform Act] applies to

mandamus petitions that seek relief analogous to civil complaints under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).

To survive a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a pro se complaint must set forth

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim for relief on its face. Id. at

471. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court

to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Although detailed factual

allegations are not required, the “allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d

929 (2007). A pleading that offers legal conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a

cause of action will not meet this pleading standard. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Even though the

standard of review for pro se pleadings is liberal, the generous construction afforded pro se

plaintiffs has limits. Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996). Pro se plaintiffs must

still meet basic pleading requirements, and courts are not required to conjure allegations on their

behalf or “guess at the nature” of their claims. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).

III. DISCUSSION

After review, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to grant the mandamus relief

requested in the Petition. The writ of mandamus has been abolished by Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 81(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b). However, “[r]elief previously available through [writs of

mandamus] may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.” Id. Under 28

U.S.C. § 1651, the All Writs Act, federal courts are granted the authority to issue “all writs

necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions, including writs in the nature of

mandamus.” The statute provides district courts with the power and authority to enter such orders

as may be necessary to enforce and effectuate their own orders and judgments. Haggard v.

Tennessee, 421 F.2d 1384, 1385 (6th Cir. 1970); Hill v. U.S. Dist. Court N. Dist. of Ohio, No.

3:13-cv-2119, 2014 WL 198800, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 15, 2014). Most importantly, the All Writs

Act is not an independent source of jurisdiction because it “permits a federal court to issue a writ

of mandamus only ‘in aid of its existing statutory jurisdiction; the Act does not enlarge that

jurisdiction.’” United States v. Carroll, No. 10-1400, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 9520, at *2 (6th Cir.

Apr. 27, 2012) (quoting Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529, 534–35, 119 S. Ct. 1538, 143 L. Ed.

2d 720 (1999)).

Petitioner does not seek relief related to an order or judgment of this Court. Instead, he

seeks mandamus relief in the form of an order compelling Respondents to perform specific acts

and comply with alleged duties owed to Petitioner. (ECF No. 1, PageID #30). Congress has

provided a limited grant of mandamus jurisdiction to district courts “to compel an officer or

employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the Plaintiff.” 28

U.S.C. § 1361. To obtain relief under this statute, an individual must establish that he has a clear

right to relief and that a federal employee has a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act. See Heckler v.

Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-17, 104 S. Ct. 2013, 80 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1984); In re Bankers Trust Co.,

61 F.3d 465, 469 (6th Cir.1995). Otherwise, district courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus against a state actor, agency, or entity. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Sup. Court,

474 F.2d 1275, 1275-76 (Sth Cir.1973) (holding that federal courts lack the authority to issue writs

of mandamus against state officers in the performance of their duties when mandamus is the only

relief sought); Lawrence v. Miami-Dade County State Att’y Off., 272 F. App’x 781, 781 (11th Cir.

2008) (“Because the only relief [the petitioner] sought was a writ of mandamus compelling action

from state officials, not federal officials, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and did

not err in dismissing the petition.”); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 US. 89,

106, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984). Here, Respondents are not officers or employees of

the United States; they are state or county agencies and employees. Accordingly, the Court lacks

Jurisdiction to grant Petitioner’s request for mandamus relief against Respondents and the Petition

must be dismissed.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and this action is

DISMISSED. The Court CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from

this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 22, 2025 ‘adi Hinvvg

CHARLES E.FLEMING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE