United States District Court, E.D. California
RAYMOND C. WATKINS, Petitioner,
TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondent.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT DISMISS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AT SCREENING ECF NO. 1
Raymond C. Watkins, a civil detainee without counsel, has
filed at least twelve cases against the Tuolumne County
Superior Court, alleging a wide variety of
misconduct. In this case, petitioner seeks a writ of
mandamus, claiming: (1) double jeopardy, (2) his wife’s
deliberate indifference to his defense needs, (3) general
conspiracy involving the judge, the prosecutor, and
petitioner’s counsel in an ongoing criminal proceeding,
seeking to deprive petitioner of effective assistance of
counsel, and (4) retaliation by jail staff for filing
ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for preliminary
review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
recommend that the court dismiss the case for failure to
state a claim. Petitioner must exhaust other avenues of
relief before seeking a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary
remedy of last resort. See In re Orange, S.A., 818
F.3d 956, 963 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the
“foremost prerequisite” to a writ of mandamus, is
that the party seeking the writ has “no other adequate
means to attain the relief he desires”). Petitioner has
other means of obtaining relief, such as filing civil rights
complaints in state or federal court, for his claims of
deliberate indifference and retaliation. Claims of double
jeopardy and judicial corruption could hypothetically qualify
for mandamus, see United States v.
Valenzuela-Arisqueta, 724 F.3d 1290, 1297 n.8 (9th Cir.
2013); United States v. Fei Ye, 436 F.3d 1117, 1123
(9th Cir. 2006), because “the prejudice of the
additional, and unnecessary, financial and emotional burden
of having to stand trial” arising from the alleged
violations could evade review, see In re Ellis, 356
F.3d 1198, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2004). But petitioner does not
state a claim of double jeopardy or judicial corruption.
support of his double jeopardy claim, petitioner argues:
The [state] trial court allowed an illegal maneuver in the
fact that I had one case for over a year, then suddenly
there’s a new felony and a very different discovery. I
found out on 3.7.18 when I was getting rebooked AGAIN that
the bail company said the charges are dropped in that case,
but here I am in jail on my 9.29.16 case plus new charges on
that case and a new case with felony committed while on Bail.
But I’m not on Bail. Double Jeopardy! They drop[p]ed
charges and brought more.
1 at 3. We construe this argument to mean that the government
brought certain charges against petitioner after dismissing
some of them in an old case and that petitioner believes that
being charged with the same offenses twice constitutes double
jeopardy. He is mistaken. Double jeopardy attaches when a
jury is empaneled and sworn, or, in the case of a bench
trial, when the court begins to hear evidence. United
States v. Stoltz, 720 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2013).
Because petitioner does not allege that a jury was empaneled
and sworn or that the court began hearing evidence in
petitioner’s old case, he does not state a claim of
claim of judicial misconduct warrants summary rejection. The
petition, read generously, appears to say that certain judges
have been unfair to petitioner because they disagreed with
him. Petitioner has identified no incident of judicial
recommend that the court deny the petition for a writ of
mandamus. ECF No. 1.
findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S.
District Court Judge presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of
Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern
District of California. Within fourteen days of the service
of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file
written objections to the findings and recommendations with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must
be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s
Findings and Recommendations.” The District Judge will
then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C.
 Petitioner’s allegations include
judicial corruption, general conspiracy among various state
actors to obstruct justice, ineffective assistance of
counsel, double jeopardy, denial of access to courts,
evidence tampering, denial of basic human rights to reflect
an alternate reality, and various errors alleged to have
taken place during his competency hearing. See Watkins v.
Tuolumne County Superior Court, Nos.