Rivera v. State of Minnesota
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:22-cv-01129
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Rivera v. State of Minnesota, Judge Menendez dismissed the case without prejudice because federal courts cannot order state courts to act.
Alveto Rivera’s federal petition was dismissed without prejudice. The ruling concerned his request to obtain a federal order directing a Minnesota state court to alter or enforce aspects of his state sentence.
What happened
Alveto Rivera asked the federal court to order a Minnesota state court to enforce what he said were the terms of his plea agreement. He argued that the state court added lifetime supervised release and lifetime sex-offender registration to his 270-month prison sentence.
Rivera objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He argued that two federal laws allowed the court to issue the requested order after Minnesota courts failed to correct what he considered an illegal sentence.
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the recommendation, overruled Rivera’s objections, denied his requests to proceed without paying fees and to waive the required copies as moot, and dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. State of Minnesota · No. 0:22-cv-01129
- Katherine Menendez
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Alveto Rivera was serving a 270-month prison sentence after pleading guilty to a state charge of criminal sexual conduct. He filed a petition asking the federal court to order the Minnesota state trial court to enforce the terms of his plea agreement. Rivera alleged that his agreement called for a 270-month sentence but that the state trial judge also imposed lifetime supervised release and lifetime sex-offender registration.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rivera objected, arguing that the recommendation incorrectly concluded that the federal mandamus statute and the All Writs Act did not authorize the requested relief.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation from the beginning, as required when a party makes specific objections. It concluded that the recommendation contained no error.
The federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, gives federal district courts jurisdiction to order a federal officer, federal employee, or federal agency to perform a duty owed to the person seeking relief. Rivera sought an order directing a state official or state court to act. The court held that § 1361 does not allow a federal court to issue that type of order against a state actor.
The court reached the same conclusion under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). That law allows federal courts to issue orders needed to support their own jurisdiction, but it does not authorize a federal court to order a state court to perform a particular judicial act.
The court also explained that the cases Rivera cited did not change the result. Some involved direct appeals or orders concerning lower federal courts, rather than a request to direct a state court. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, Rivera’s other requests for relief were moot.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Menendez accepted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, overruled Rivera’s objections, denied his motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees as moot, and denied his motion to waive the required number of copies as moot. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed that judgment be entered.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.