TASCH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITYDIVISION

ANTHONY TASCH,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:26-cv-16-MW/MJF

MTC CORRECTIONAL, et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This court has preliminarily screened Petitioner’s petition for a writ

of mandamus. Petitioner is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis. Petitioner requests that the District Court compel

Defendants to: (1) perform ministerial duties in accordance with Florida

law; and (2) reinstate Plaintiff’s lost gain time. Doc. 1. Because federal

courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to direct state officials

to perform their state duties, the District Court should deny the petition

and close this case.

STANDARD

The District Court is required to review Plaintiff’s complaint,

identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion

thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from

a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b);

see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (applying the same standard to in forma

pauperis proceedings). Determining whether a complaint states a claim

upon which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set forth in

Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997).

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which codified the common-law writ of

mandamus, district courts “have original jurisdiction . . . 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 (emphasis added); see

Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Mandamus relief is available

only to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty when (1)

the petitioner has a clear right to relief; (2) the respondent has a clear

duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Serrano v.

U.S. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Cash v.

Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)). “These three threshold

requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a court must dismiss

the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d

183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Federal courts generally “have no authority to issue” a writ of

mandamus “to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the

performance of their duties.” Cahill v. Kendall, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1322,

1330 (S.D. Ala. 2002). When a petition seeks to have a district court

compel action from state officials, the district court lacks jurisdiction to

grant relief. Lawrence v. Miami-Dade Cnty. State Att’y Off., 272 F. App’x

781, 781 (11th Cir. 2008); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436

n.5 (10th Cir. 1986); Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973).

As noted above, Petitioner requests the District Court issue an

order compelling state officials and a corporation that operates prisons to

perform their duties in accordance with Florida law. The District Court

lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to do so. See Brown v. Lewis, 361 F.

App’x 51, 56 (11th Cir. 2010); see Hernandez v. Charlotte Corr. Inst. Staff,

2006 WL 3349552, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006).

Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner requests that the District

Court compel Defendants to overturn Petitioner’s adverse disciplinary

reports and reinstate his good time, a petition for a write of habeas corpus

is Petitioner’s exclusive remedy. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500

(1973); Hale v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 345 F. App’x 489, 492 (11th Cir.

2009). Thus, Petitioner has an adequate remedy that he can pursue once

he exhausts remedies available under state remedies.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned respectfully

RECOMMENDS the District Court:

1. DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s petition for writ of

mandamus; and

2. DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of February 2026.

/s/ Michael J. Frank

Michael J. Frank

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The District Court referred this case to a magistrate

judge 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 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. 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.