Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. California Department of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 1, 2019

LOUREECE STONE CLARK, Petitioner,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER AND FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

          KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Introduction

         Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On September 17, 2019, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate directed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but filed in the Northern District of California, and transferred to the Eastern District of California. Petitioner claims to seek relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and names as respondents both the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

         As discussed below, the petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

         Request for In Forma Pauperis Status

         Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

         The Petition

         Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directed to the respondent court, alleging a violation of crime victims' rights under 18 U.S.C. § 3771. (ECF No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner claims that on September 17, 2018, and November 20, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for re-designation of sentence and affidavit of truth. He states that on December 21, 2018, May 24, 2019, and June 3, 2019, respondent ignored petitioner's requests. Petitioner requests an “emergency order” releasing his “body within 72 hours to the National Association of Civilian Chapter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771 in compliance without prejudice UCC 1-308.” (ECF No. 1 at 3.) In the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, petitioner relies on California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1086, as well as various other cases filed in California courts. (ECF No. 1 at 4.)

         Background

         In Sacramento County Superior Court, No. 09F06018, a jury found petitioner guilty of misdemeanor resisting arrest, deadlocked on the remaining counts, and the court declared a mistrial as to the remaining felony counts. Clark v. Lewis, No. 12-cv-2687 TLN GGH (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2014 Findings and Recommendations) (ECF No. 32 at 2).[1] Subsequently, petitioner pled no contest to two counts of second degree robbery and one count of evading a police officer, and on July 15, 2011, was sentenced to six years in state prison. Id. (ECF No. 32 at 3).

         Petitioner filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the 2011 conviction, which was denied on the merits on August 5, 2014. Clark v. Lewis, No. 12-cv-2687 TLN GGH (E.D. Cal.).

         On February 16, 2018, in Sacramento County Superior Court No. 17FE001757, a jury found petitioner guilty of evading a police officer/reckless driving (ECF No. 1 at 24-25), and petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of six years. Clark v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, No. 2:18-cv-2948 JAM AC (E.D. Cal.) (ECF No. 1 at 11 (abstract of judgment).)

         Subsequently, petitioner filed both a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a petition for writ of mandate under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Clark, No. 2:18-cv-2948 JAM AC. On June 19, 2019, the district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

         On December 21, 2018, the Sacramento County Superior Court denied petitioner's requests for re-designation of sentence in both Nos. 09F06018 and 17FE001757 “due ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.