Gougher v. Mnuchin
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:19-cv-07217
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Gougher v. Mnuchin, Judge Rogers dismissed the petition without prejudice, denied reconsideration, and terminated another motion as moot.
Marlin Lee Gougher's petition was dismissed without prejudice, his reconsideration requests were denied, and his subpoena-and-stay motion was terminated as moot. Steve Mnuchin remained the named respondent.
What happened
In Gougher v. Mnuchin, Marlin Lee Gougher, a federal prisoner representing himself, asked the court to order Steve Mnuchin to act. The court had previously dismissed his petition but gave him a chance to amend it and later granted two extensions.
Gougher did not timely file an amended petition. He instead asked the court to reconsider its earlier order and transfer the case to a magistrate judge. He also asked the Clerk to issue a subpoena and stay the case.
Judge Rogers denied the requests for permission to seek reconsideration, dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute, and terminated the remaining motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Gougher v. Mnuchin · No. 4:19-cv-07217
- Yvonne Rogers
- Dec. 8, 2020
Background
Marlin Lee Gougher, a federal prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a document that the court construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus—a request asking a court to order a federal officer to perform a required duty. The petition referred to a claimed transfer of a trust from the Treasury Department to the President, but provided few details.
On April 20, 2020, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend. The court explained that mandamus relief requires a clear and certain claim, a plainly required and non-discretionary duty, and no other adequate remedy. The court stated that Gougher's allegations appeared implausible and did not meet those requirements. It gave him one opportunity to file an amended petition addressing the legal standards and describing the requested relief.
The court later granted Gougher's requests for two extensions. The second extension gave him until October 2, 2020, to respond and warned that the action would be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute if he did not file an amended petition.
Motions and Analysis
Gougher did not file a timely amended petition. Instead, he filed documents objecting to the earlier dismissal and asking that the case be heard by a magistrate judge. The court construed those documents as requests for permission to file a motion for reconsideration under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9.
The court found that Gougher had not shown any basis for reconsideration. It also rejected his argument that the case should be reassigned to a magistrate judge. The record showed that he had initially declined magistrate-judge jurisdiction, after which the case was correctly reassigned to the district judge. The court stated that his later change of mind did not alter that reassignment.
Gougher also filed a motion asking the Clerk to issue a subpoena to Steve Mnuchin and to stay the case. Because the action was being dismissed, the court treated the remaining pending motions as moot.
Disposition
The court denied Gougher's requests for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. It dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Gougher had not filed the required amended petition after receiving two extensions. The Clerk was directed to terminate the remaining pending motions as moot, including the subpoena and stay motion, and to close the file. The order terminated Docket Nos. 26, 27, and 30.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.