Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clark v. Taylor

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 7, 2017

BAKER EDMAN CLARK, Petitioner,
v.
CEDRIC TAYLOR, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, IR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation [7] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court deny Petitioner Baker Edman Clark's (“Petitioner”) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition [1], construed as his Writ of Mandamus. Also before the Court is Petitioner's “Motion to Dismiss the Objection Part of Petitioner's Response to Magistrate's Order Directing the Petitioner to Consolidate his two Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus” [9] (“Motion to Dismiss Objection”).

         I. BACKGROUND

         In 2016, Petitioner, who is confined in state prison, submitted two “Petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Based on these petitions, the Clerk of Court opened this case and Case No. 1:16-cv-192. On April 19, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order [4] (“Show Cause Order”) in this case requiring Petitioner “to file an Amended Petition that sets forth all his claims in a single document and to [show cause]” why Case No. 1:16-cv-192 should not be administratively closed as duplicative of this case. (Show Cause Order at 1-2).

         On May 10, 2016, Petitioner filed his “Response and Objection” [6] to the Show Cause Order, stating that he does not intend to attack his state court convictions in this case, but rather seeks to obtain an order directing a state court to “amend and correct” a transcript of its proceedings. ([6] at 2 (“[T]his petition is based on a post-conviction motion to amend and correct the trial court's transcript and has nothing to do with petitioner's convictions or sentences.”)).

         On February 16, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R. In light of Petitioner's representation that he seeks to amend and correct a transcript of a state court proceeding, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Clerk to recategorize this action as one seeking a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief, and recommends the Court dismiss this action.

         On February 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his Motion to Dismiss Objection, seeking to strike the “Objection” portion of his response to the Magistrate Judge's Show Cause Order. Petitioner does not appear to object to the R&R. The same day, Petitioner filed his brief in support of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he presents several attacks on his state court conviction. It is evident that Petitioner intended to file this document in Case No. 1:16-cv-192.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where, as here, no party has objected to the report and recommendation, the Court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).

         B. Analysis

         The Magistrate Judge determined that Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The Court agrees. “[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cty. Sup. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). Because Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief, the Magistrate Judge recommends the Court dismiss this action. The Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation, and this action is dismissed.[1]

         III. CONCLUSION

         For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Catherine M. Salinas's Final Report ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.