Petitioner has filed a second request for an extension of time to file and serve a traverse in this action. Good cause appearing, the request will be granted. However, no further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.
Petitioner has also filed a "writ of mandate," pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 requesting that this court order the Solano County Superior Court to provide petitioner with his entire record on appeal. (See Dkt. No. 24.) Petitioner claims that he has not been provided with all of the transcripts of the state court proceedings.
Petitioner's "writ of mandate" will be denied. Petitioner should, as he is apparently attempting to do, obtain copies of the transcripts from the attorneys who represented him in those state court proceedings. Petitioner was represented by counsel on appeal and appears to be currently seeking copies of the transcripts from his appellate counsel. (See Dkt. No. 24 Ex. 1A.) Additionally, petitioner makes no showing that he has attempted to obtain copies of the purportedly missing transcripts from the applicable state court. Cf. Moore v. Lamarque, Civ. No. 02-0007, 2008 WL 5221002, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2008) (denying petitioner's request for transcripts from respondent noting in part that petitioner made no showing that he attempted to obtain copies of the documents from the appropriate state court and that petitioner should obtain copies of transcripts from his attorneys). Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, this court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the Solano County Superior Court. See Demos v. United States Dist. Court E. Dist. Wash., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991) ("this court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court") (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651); see also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731-32 (7th Cir. 2001) (denying petition for writ of mandamus that would order state trial court to give plaintiff access to certain trial transcripts which he sought in preparation for filing state post-conviction petition because a federal court may not, as a general rule, issue mandamus to a state judicial officer to control or interfere with state court litigation); Torres v. Clark, Civ. No. 10-2910, 2010 WL 1708985, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's October 19, 2012, request for an extension of time (Dkt. No. 23) is GRANTED;
2. Petitioner is granted thirty (30) days from the date of this order in which to file and serve his traverse. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose; and
3. Petitioner's motion for "writ of mandate" (Dkt. No. 24.) is DENIED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...