Elamin v. Pelosi

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALEEM EL-AMIN Case No.: 19cv2173-LAB (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING 13 v. COMPLAINT AND CHARGING PLAINTIFF WITH A STRIKE 14 NANCY PELOSI 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Saleem El-Amin filed a petition for writ of mandamus against 18 Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. He also filed a motion 19 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). He asks that the Court order her to regulate 20 federal courts so that his 2014 armed robbery conviction in the Superior Court of 21 the District of Columbia on November 14, 2014 will ultimately be set aside. He 22 attaches a document showing that he was convicted and sentenced in. His IFP 23 motion shows he is confined at the Federal Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. 24 A review of caselaw shows that El-Amin also unsuccessfully brought a 25 habeas petition attacking his conviction. See El-Amin v. English, ___ Fed. Appx. 26 ___, 2019 WL 4879402 (10th Cir. Oct. 3, 2019) (denying certificate of appealability 27 and dismissing appeal). It is clear El-Amin is the same person as the 28 petitioner/appellant in the Tenth Circuit case, because the details and dates of their 1 convictions are the same, and his inmate number is the same. His IFP motion also 2 admits the Tenth Circuit charged him with a strike. 3 Because El-Amin is a prisoner seeking redress from a government officer, 4 the Court is required to screen his complaint, and to dismiss it to the extent it is 5 frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court would 6 must also screen the complaints of plaintiffs proceeding IFP. 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1915(e)(2)(B). 8 The Court lacks any power to compel Congress to legislate. See generally 9 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) (discussing political question doctrine). 10 Furthermore, to the extent El-Amin had any Constitutional claims as he now 11 argues, he would not need the benefit of any new laws or regulations, because 12 existing Constitutional and federal law provide for such claims. The amendment 13 of such laws, if needed, is within the prerogative of Congress. Hodel v. Va. Surface. 14 Min. & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 283 (1981) (“[T]he effectiveness of 15 existing laws in dealing with a problem identified by Congress is ordinarily a matter 16 committed to legislative judgment.”) El-Amin’s complaint appears to be a response 17 to procedural rulings in the habeas case, which he contends deprived him of the 18 right to bring his claims. In fact, as he knows, he did bring claims, and they were 19 considered and rejected. In other words, the legislation El-Amin is asking the Court 20 to order is not necessary because he was not deprived of any right to bring claims. 21 Even if he believes other courts’ decisions are wrong, he cannot continue to 22 relitigate the validity of his conviction by framing it differently and filing it in different 23 courts. The rapidity with which El-Amin is filing related cases, and the fact that he 24 chose to file it in this District, which has no connection at all to his claims, bespeak 25 a mischievous intent. 26 El-Amin’s frivolous claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and his 27 motion to proceed IFP is DENIED AS MOOT. 28 / / / 1 In his IFP motion, El-Amin admits that in a separate case, El-Amin v. Office 2 for Access to Administration of Justice, 2019 WL 4194057, slip op. at *2 (D. Kan., 3 Sept. 4, 2019), he was charged with a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Similarly in 4 this case, El-Amin’s complaint lacks even an arguable basis for mandamus relief. 5 The Court concludes that this matter also counts as a strike. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: November 19, 2019 9 10 Honorable Larry Alan Burns Chief United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28