Blank v. People of the State of California
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-07500
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Blank v. People, Judge Tigar dismissed Blank’s action with prejudice because federal courts cannot direct state courts.
Gary Louis Blank’s action was dismissed with prejudice, judgment was entered for the defendants, and the case was closed. The order also directed the Clerk to deny all pending motions as moot.
What happened
In Blank v. People of the State of California, Gary Louis Blank, who was incarcerated and representing himself, asked the federal court to order the California Supreme Court to act on his request to overturn his criminal judgment, release him, or award him compensation.
The court explained that federal district courts cannot order state courts, state judges, or other state officials to perform their duties. It also said the federal law Blank cited applies to orders directed at federal officers or agencies, not the California Supreme Court.
Judge Tigar dismissed the action with prejudice because changing the complaint could not fix this legal problem. The court entered judgment for the defendants, directed the Clerk to deny all pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Blank v. People of the State of California · No. 4:24-cv-07500
- Jon Tigar
- Jan. 8, 2025
Background
Gary Louis Blank, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, filed an action titled “Original Writ of Preemptory Mandate” under 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He alleged that on September 25, 2024, he filed a motion with the California Supreme Court asking it to set aside his Mendocino County Superior Court criminal judgment, release him from custody, and compensate him for serving nine years on an invalid judgment. Blank alleged that the California Supreme Court had not responded or set a hearing.
Blank asked the federal court to issue a writ of mandate—a court order requiring an official or court to take a specified action—directing the California Supreme Court either to set a hearing or to enter a default judgment in his favor, declare his conviction null and void, and release him.
Screening and Analysis
Because Blank was incarcerated and sought relief from governmental defendants, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That screening law requires the court to identify claims that may proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that pleadings filed without a lawyer must be read generously, but must still provide more than labels, conclusions, or unsupported assertions.
The court held that Blank’s request was frivolous as a matter of law because federal district courts lack power to issue mandamus directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in carrying out their duties. The court further held that 28 U.S.C. § 1361 did not apply because it gives federal district courts authority over mandamus actions seeking to compel federal officers, employees, or agencies, and the California Supreme Court is not a federal entity or agency.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against Blank. The Clerk was directed to deny all pending motions as moot and close the file. The order was issued by Jon S. Tigar.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.