United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER OF DISMISSAL RE: DKT. 1, 7
ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Wilridge, an inmate at the Correctional Training Facility,
filed this pro se action seeking a writ of mandate.
His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The court also considers his request
for appointment of counsel.
Wilridge was convicted in Santa Clara County Superior Court
of robbery and was found to have suffered six prior
convictions. On February 1, 2002, he was sentenced to 30
years to life in prison.
2009, Wilridge filed a federal petition for writ of habeas
corpus to challenge his state court conviction and sentence,
Wilridge v. Marshall, N. D. Cal. No. 09-cv-2236 SI
(the "2009 case"). The key issue litigated in the
2009 case was whether that petition had been filed before the
expiration of the habeas statute of limitations period.
Counsel was appointed for Wilridge and an evidentiary hearing
was held to determine whether Wilridge was entitled to
equitable tolling due to his mental illness. The court
concluded that the petition was time-barred.
present action, Wilridge attempts to assert claims for the
failure to bring him to federal court to attend two of the
three sessions of an evidentiary hearing in the 2009 case,
notwithstanding that a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum
had been issued for him to be brought to court.
Allegations In The Petition For Writ of Mandate
petition for writ of mandate alleges the following:
January 27, 2015, this court issued a writ of habeas corpus
ad testificandum for Wilridge, who was then housed at the
California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo, to be brought
to federal court for an evidentiary hearing scheduled for
February 4, 2015 in the 2009 case. The warden at the
California Men's Colony allegedly failed to follow a
court-ordered subpoena and writ for Wilridge's
attendance. The Deputy Attorney General representing the
warden allegedly on his own quashed that subpoena.
Wilridge's attorney allegedly knew Wilridge wanted to
testify at the hearing but failed to ensure that Wilridge was
present for the evidentiary hearing. Docket No. 1 at 9-14.
petition for writ of mandate lists five causes of action: (1)
writ of mandate against "respondent" for failing to
do his ministerial duty to comply with the court's
orders; (2) breach of contract by Wilridge's counsel; (3)
inadequate legal work by Wilridge's counsel; (4) breach
of fiduciary duty based on counsel's careless legal work;
and (5) "defendants" denied petitioner his day in
court by failing to do their ministerial duty to comply with
the writ. Docket No. 1 at 17-22. The petition also contains a
cause of action captioned "declaratory relief requesting
a declaration that respondent was required to comply with the
requirements of California Penal Code section 5058 and
California's Administrative Procedures Act, see
Cal. Gov't Code section 11370, "before
implementation of a scheme to deny a prisoner his right, his
day in court, and not follow a court order." Docket No.
1 at 33.
respondents named in the petition for writ of mandate are
three prison wardens, the director of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the
attorneys who were appointed to represent Wilridge
in the 2009 action.
petition further alleges that this court erred in dismissing
the petition in the 2009 case as time-barred because this
court did not first hold a competency hearing and a valid
evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing allegedly was
not "valid" because Wilridge was not present.
Docket No. 1 at 25.
petition further alleges that the court should sanction the
Deputy Attorney General for not complying with the writ and
subpoena in the 2009 case. Docket No. 1 at 26. As sanctions,
Wilridge requests that the court grant the writ of habeas
corpus in the 2009 case, allow the petition in the 2009 case
to be heard on the merits, or award damages. Id. at
The Evidentiary Hearing In The 2009 Case
court takes judicial notice of the documents filed in the
2009 case. ...