Reyes v. Arce
- Beth Freeman
- 5:24-cv-06654
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Reyes v. Arce, Judge Freeman dismissed Reyes’s mandamus action without prejudice and denied his stay request as moot.
Augustine Reyes’s federal action was dismissed without prejudice; Warden Carlos Arce was not ordered to change Reyes’s housing or classification.
What happened
In Reyes v. Arce, Augustine Reyes, a state prisoner representing himself, asked the federal court for a writ ordering Warden Carlos Arce to stop housing him with certain inmates and transfer him to a different facility or yard. He also requested damages for emotional distress and an immediate stay.
The court said the California writ statutes Reyes cited do not apply in federal court. It also said a federal district court cannot use federal mandamus law to direct state officials. The court noted that Reyes might instead be able to bring a civil-rights case under federal law concerning prison conditions, including safety concerns.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman dismissed the action without prejudice to Reyes filing a new civil-rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied his request for an immediate stay as moot and directed the Clerk to send him civil-rights and fee-waiver forms.
The detailed version
- Reyes v. Arce · No. 5:24-cv-06654
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
Augustine Reyes, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition labeled as a request for a state-law writ of mandate or prohibition. He also requested an immediate stay. Reyes alleged that Warden Carlos Arce was not following laws, regulations, and prison operating procedures concerning Reyes’s classification, housing, special needs, enemies, affiliations, and safety concerns about attacks by other inmates. He sought an order preventing his placement with certain inmates and requiring transfer to a facility or yard without those inmates. He also sought damages for emotional distress.
Reyes cited sections of the California Code of Civil Procedure governing state writs of mandate and prohibition. He argued that he had no other adequate remedy.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the California writ statutes Reyes cited do not provide a basis for relief in federal court. The court also considered whether the filing could be treated as a request for a federal writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. It concluded that this would be futile because federal district courts cannot issue mandamus directing state courts, state judicial officers, or other state officials in performing their duties.
The court explained that Reyes may be able to seek relief for prison conditions through a new civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. That statute provides a claim for violating rights secured by the Constitution or federal law when the violation is committed by someone acting under state authority. The court noted that Reyes’s safety allegations might involve the Eighth Amendment, which requires prison officials to take reasonable measures to protect prisoners. The court did not decide whether Reyes could ultimately prove such a claim.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice to Reyes filing a new civil-rights action under § 1983, preferably on the court’s prisoner civil-rights complaint form. The court denied as moot Reyes’s request to stay the matter. It directed the Clerk to send Reyes two copies of the prisoner civil-rights complaint form and an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Reyes’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee was to be addressed in a separate order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.