LEFRANC
v.
FUSON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to state courts or their officers, and must abstain from interfering with ongoing state proceedings.
An applicant sent a letter to a federal district court, construed as an application for a writ of mandamus against a state judge. The applicant compla…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Haines V. Kerner Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
Lefranc files a copy of a letter addressed to the Honorable Robin F. Fuson, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, which paper is best construed as an application under 28 U.S.C. § 1641 for the writ of mandamus. Lefranc complains that the state court should not rely on a 1988 sex offender charge from the State of California because he was “never found guilty of this charge . . . .” (Doc. 1 at 1) Lefranc neither moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the full $402 filing fee. Nevertheless, under either 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (if proceeding in forma pauperis) or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (if the full filing fee is paid), the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires a district court both to review the action and to dismiss the action if frivolous or malicious or for failing to state a claim upon “which relief may be granted.” Although Lefranc’s paper is entitled to a generous interpretation, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (per curiam), this pro se action lacks merit under this standard. To the extent that he requests this federal court to order Judge Fuson to decide a particular issue, Lefranc is advised that a federal court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to order a state agency, a state court, or the state’s judicial employees to perform a duty. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F. 2d 383 (5th Cir. 1971).1 See also Campbell v. Gersten, 394 F. App’x 654 (11th Cir. 2010)2 (“The district court also lacked authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the state court and its officers to reinstate his motions to vacate and consider those motions on the merits.”) (citing Lamar, 440 F. 2d at 384); Lawrence v. Miami-Dade County State Att’y Office, 272 F. App’x 781, 781 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Because the only relief Lawrence 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.”); Bailey v. Silberman, 226 F. App’x 922, 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Federal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus directing a state court and its judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.”). No authority exists to issue a writ of mandamus to Judge Fuson in this action.
STEVEND.MERRYDAY [...]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1971)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)