(HC) Caetano v. United States of America et al, No. 1:2023cv01648 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/30/2023 recommending that 1 Petition be dismissed. Referred to Judge Jennifer L Thurston; Objections to F&R due within 21-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHANIEL DWAYNE CAETANO, 12 Petitioner, 13 Case No. 1:23-cv-01648-SKO ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE v. 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 15 Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 16 17 On November 27, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 1361 in this Court. The petition is frivolous and nonsensical. Therefore, the Court will 19 recommend the petition be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 20 21 DISCUSSION The All Writs Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), provides that “[t]he Supreme Court 22 and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid 23 of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The federal 24 mandamus statute set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1361 provides: “The district courts shall have 25 original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee 26 of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 27 1361. 28 Mandamus relief is only available to compel an officer of the United States to perform a 1 1 duty if (1) the petitioner's claim is clear and certain; (2) the duty of the officer “is ministerial 2 and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt,” Tagupa v. East-West Center, Inc., 642 F.2d 3 1127, 1129 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting Jarrett v. Resort, 426 F.2d 213, 216 (9th Cir.1970)); and (3) 4 no other adequate remedy is available. Piledrivers' Local Union No. 2375 v. Smith, 695 F.2d 5 390, 392 (9th Cir.1982). 6 Petitioner’s claims are not clear and certain; rather, they are entirely nonsensical. 7 Petitioner claims that he is “Prophet Yahweh Satan” and the “lawful Constitutional President of 8 the United States.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) He seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the United States of 9 America to permit him “to create the Apocalypse Chapter 21:1 New Heaven and New Earth.” 10 (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner states he is “the official Registered Prophet, Lord, God, and President 11 of the United States of America.” (Doc. 1 at 5.) The balance of the petition fares no better with 12 obscure and frivolous references to the Bible, the City of Hanford, the Federal Reserve, the 13 spelling of Petitioner’s name, and nonsensical mathematical calculations. The arguments make 14 no sense, are frivolous, and do not merit further analysis. Furthermore, mandamus relief is not 15 available because Respondent is not an officer, employee or agency of the United States. ORDER 16 17 The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to this case. RECOMMENDATION 18 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that this action be DISMISSED 20 WITH PREJUDICE as frivolous. 21 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, 22 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 23 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty-one 24 (21) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 25 objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 26 Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 27 ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 28 ///// 2 1 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 2 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: /s/ Sheila K. Oberto November 30, 2023 . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.