Martin v. Supreme Court of California

Background

O.Z. Martin filed a petition for a writ of mandate asking the federal district court to require the California Supreme Court to consider his claims about the lawfulness of his 2000 Alameda County Superior Court conviction and resulting sentence. The sentence had been enhanced because of prior convictions following guilty pleas in 1982 and 1994.

Federal Mandamus

The federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, gives district courts authority to order an officer or employee of the United States, or a federal agency, to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. The court explained that this authority does not extend to state courts or state judicial officers. Because Martin sought an order directing the California Supreme Court to act, he could not obtain relief under the federal mandamus statute.

All Writs Act

Martin also could not obtain relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). That law permits courts to issue orders supporting their existing jurisdiction, but the court stated that Martin's petition did not show subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying case or controversy. The court therefore could not use the All Writs Act to create or support jurisdiction that had not been established.

Habeas Corpus and Earlier Proceedings

The court stated that a state prisoner challenging the fact or length of imprisonment must use a federal petition for habeas corpus when seeking release or a shorter period of imprisonment. Martin could not avoid that rule by labeling his filing a petition for a writ of mandate. The court further stated that a federal habeas petition was the only possible federal route for challenging the lawfulness of his state conviction and sentence.

The court described several earlier related proceedings in which Martin had attempted to challenge his conviction, sentence, or restitution. Those proceedings included dismissals based on the requirement to use habeas corpus, the need for permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive habeas petition, and the improper challenge to restitution. The Ninth Circuit had also denied certificates of appealability in connection with some of those proceedings.

Martin had not obtained an order from the Ninth Circuit permitting him to file a second or successive habeas petition in this action. The district court concluded that converting his mandate petition into a habeas petition would therefore be futile. It also noted that Martin had previously been told about this permission requirement and had unsuccessfully sought such permission four times.

Disposition

Judge Edward M. Chen ordered that the action be DISMISSED as legally frivolous and directed the Clerk to close the file. The opinion did not decide the merits of Martin's challenges to his conviction or sentence.