Erin R. Amie v. Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Erin R. Amie filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus directed to a state court but failed to pay the filing fee, move to proceed in forma pauperis, or establish subject matter jurisdiction within the court's deadline. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with statutory requirements.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the civil action without prejudice“For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without prejudice for failure to either pay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and failure to prosecute.” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally sound. The petitioner failed to satisfy the mandatory filing fee requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) and did not file a motion for in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Additionally, the petitioner failed to respond to the court's order to establish subject matter jurisdiction or amend the pleading within the specified 45-day window. The subsequent filing (ECF No. 3) did not address these deficiencies. Dismissal without prejudice is the appropriate remedy for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders regarding jurisdiction and fees. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural deficiencies: lack of filing fee/IFP motion and lack of subject matter jurisdiction (mandamus to state court). It cites the correct statutes and binding Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the limits of federal mandamus power over state courts. The dismissal without prejudice is appropriate given the petitioner's failure to respond to the court's specific directives within the allotted time.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIN R. AMIE, Case No.: 26-cv-178-RSH-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
14 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS 15 ANGELES, 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 On January 1, 2026, petitioner Erin R. Amie, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 20 by filing a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). On January 21 14, 2026, the Court issued an Order stating that the case may not proceed because Petitioner 22 failed to prepay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), or file a motion to proceed 23 in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2 at 1-2. The Order further indicated that it appeared 24 the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because “the Petition seeks a writ directed to the 25 California Superior Court.” Id. at 2; see also Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th 26 Cir. 1966) (“The federal courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct 27 state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties[.]”). 28 // 1 The Court ordered that if Petitioner wished to proceed with this action, she must: (1) 2 || pay the filing fee of $405 or file a motion to proceed IFP; and (2) establish that the Court 3 ||has subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition or file an amended pleading within the 4 ||subject matter jurisdiction of the Court within forty-five days—or by February 28, 2026. 5 at 2. On April 6, 2026, Petitioner filed a document requesting that the Court release her 6 || from prison. ECF No. 3 at 1. Although the Court considered and reviewed Plaintiff’s letter, 7 || the letter does not address the requirements previously imposed by the Court. See ECF No. 8 9 For these reasons, the Court DISMISSES this civil action in its entirety without 10 prejudice for failure to either pay the filing fee as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or 11 properly move to proceed IFP pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and failure to prosecute. 12 || See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). The Clerk of Court 13 |/is directed to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: April 10, 2026 . 6 feet G Low 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28