United States District Court, D. Nevada
BLAKE L. ANDERSON, Petitioner,
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, et al., Respondents.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
action brought by Blake Anderson (“Petitioner” or
“Anderson”) comes before the Court for initial
review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition
under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 against the State of Nevada and
its Eight Judicial District Court seeking to overturn a
judgment of conviction entered in Nevada state district
court. (ECF No. 1.) A filing fee has been paid. Following initial
review, the Court concludes that Anderson's papers are
subject to multiple substantial defects.
Eleventh Amendment Immunity
a federal district court does not have jurisdiction over an
action brought against the State of Nevada or the Eighth
Judicial District Court for the State of Nevada. Petitioner
may not proceed directly against the State of Nevada or an
arm of the State - such as the state district court - in
federal court due to the state sovereign immunity recognized
by the Eleventh Amendment. E.g., O'Connor v. State of
Nevada, 686 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1982) (state district
court). State sovereign immunity bars an action against the
state or an arm of the state in federal court regardless of
the relief sought. E.g., Pennhurst State School &
Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101-02 (1984).
No Appellate Jurisdiction Over the State Courts
a federal district court does not have appellate jurisdiction
over a state court, whether by direct appeal, mandamus,
prohibition, and/or an exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.
See, e.g., Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,
263 U.S. 413 (1923); Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d
895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Demos v. United States
District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir. 1991)
(federal court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to issue
a writ of mandamus to a state court). If Petitioner wants to
seek collateral review of his conviction in federal court, he
must file a timely petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2254, not a petition for a writ of mandamus
or prohibition under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
to the extent that Petitioner challenges his judgment of
conviction other than through a habeas petition, the civil
action is barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). An inmate in custody pursuant to a judgment of
conviction may not pursue claims that necessarily challenge
the validity of that conviction in a federal civil action
other than in a federal habeas action. Id.
Opportunity to Recharacterize and Amend
the multiple substantial defects presented, the petition for
a writ of mandamus or prohibition will be dismissed without
prejudice, but without entry of final judgment. Anderson will
have 30 days within which to recharacterize his request for
relief and file an amended petition that, inter
alia: (a) instead seeks a writ of habeas corpus; (b) is
filed on the Court's required § 2254 petition form;
and (c) names his immediate physical custodian,
i.e., the warden of his facility, as a respondent.
should note that if he - despite the dismissal of his
petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition - tries to
simply use the habeas petition form as a means to pursue
instead a mandamus petition,  final judgment will be entered
dismissing this action, for the reasons assigned herein.
Anderson's continuing efforts, across multiple actions,
to pursue a petition for a writ of mandamus by this Court
directed to the state courts are completely frivolous. His