Walker v. Unknown Defendants, No. 1:2010cv01510 - Document 2 (N.D. Ga. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION DISMISSING the 1 Complaint for mandamus relief pursuant to 28 USC § 1915A. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file this action in forma pauperis, for the purpose of dismissal only. Signed by Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr. on 6/1/2010. (alc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IF FILED IN UER" 01 U .:. D.C, Monte IN THE UNITED S TAT ES DISTRICT C OURT JU N O 1 2010 FOR THE NORTHERN DI ST RI CT OF GEORGIA JAMES . r~ AT7En, c EE ~ ATLAN T A DIVISION gy. ;'~ c~-= SCOTT WALKER, Plaintiff, V. MANDAMUS 28 U .S .C . § 1361 CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 : 10-CV-1510-TCB UNNAMED, Defendant . ORDE R AN D OPINION Plaintiff, currently confined at the Augusta State Medical Prison in Grovetown, Georgia, has submitted a letter to this Court which the Clerk has construed as a 28 U .S .C. § 1361 petition for a writ of mandamus . (Doc. 1) . Plaintiff asks this Court to obtain a copy of his prison record from the Georgia Department of Corrections . (1d.) After receiving his prison record, Plaintiff invites a member of this Court to visit him and to ask him questions about his prison life . (Id.) Plaintiff promises to answer all questions truthfully . (Id.) Plaintiff's request regarding his prison record is "in the nature of mandamus ." 28 U .S .C . § 1361 . Federal mandamus is available only "to compel an officer or employee of the United States . . . to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." Id. Federal courts have no general power to issue writs of mandamus against state officials . Moye v . Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F .2d AO 72A (Rev .8/82) 41 1275 (5th Cir . 1973) ; Noe v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 495 F . Supp . 501, 504 (N .D . Ga, 1980), aff'd, 644 F .2d 434 (5th Cir .), cert. denied, 454 U .S . 1126 (198 1) . Therefore, a federal court does not have the authority to order the Georgia Department of Corrections to provide this Court with a copy of Plaintiff's prison record . With regard to Plaintiff's invitation to visit him in prison, it is not the role of the federal judiciary to initiate investigations or to serve as an advocate for a potential litigant . Consequently, this Court will not be able to send someone to visit Plaintiff. This Court is unable to satisfy Plaintiff's requests . Therefore, this action should be summarily dismissed . See 2$ U .S .C. § 1915A . IT IS ORDERED that the instant pro se petition for a writ of mandamus is DISMISSED, pursuant to 28 U.S .C . § 1915A . For the purpose of dismissal only, Plaintiff is G RANTED leave to file this action in forma pauperis . IT IS SO ORDERED , this I.& day J +r'`4 - , 20 10 . TIMOTHY C . BATTEN, SR . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2 AO 72A (Rev .8/82)
]]>
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.
