GODHIGH
v.
CAHN
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.
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a state official and that the petitioner had not properly commenced a civil action for damages.
Petitioner, a state inmate, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the return of his tablet and damages, alleging retaliation by a prison pro…
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 Claim For Money Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
owes him a clear duty, and (3) he has no adequate remedy, meaning he “has exhausted all other avenues of relief.” Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F. 3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003). The purpose of mandamus relief is to “enforce a right [that] has already been established,” not to establish a legal right. Davis v. United
States, 558 F. App’x 898, 901 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Nordbye, 75 F. 2d 744, 746 (8th Cir. 1935)). The sole named Respondent, R. Cahn, is not a federal officer. As such, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner’s petition. See, e.g., Lamar
v. 118th Judicial Dist. Court of Tex., 440 F. 2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971) (“[F]ederal courts have no general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”); Lawrence v. Miami-Dade Cnty. State Att’y Office, 272 F. App’x 781, 781 (11th
Cir. 2008) (“Because the only relief [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.”). And to the extent Petitioner seeks monetary damages, he has not properly
commenced a civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”).
If Petitioner believes corrections officials have violated his rights— constitutional, or otherwise—he should pursue any available remedies through the prison grievance procedure or through a civil rights action, as appropriate. But, if Petitioner seeks to initiate a non-frivolous civil rights action regarding the conditions of his confinement at Santa Rosa Correctional Institution, he should do so in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the case. DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 7th day of June 2022.
fp. LY fo Ares.|,) Corr
BRIAN/J . DAVIS
United States District Judge Jax-6 C: Mario Godhigh
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cash v. Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2003)
- United States v. Nordbye, 75 F.2d 744 (8th Cir. 1935)