United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green
N. Stivers, Chief Judge United States District Court
Michael Wayne Long has filed a petition for a writ of
mandamus pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. §
petition, Plaintiff states that he was indicted in Logan
Circuit Court in 1978 for robbery, burglary, and
rape. Plaintiff states that the “absence
of a grand jury transcript at  trial . . . prohibited him
from defending himself” and “denied him the
fundamental fairness of due process.” He continues:
“Without questi[on] the indictment . . . is falsity,
false testimony to the grand jury, falsifying a record, the
crime of making false entries or otherwise tampering with
police records of evidence . . . .” As relief,
Plaintiff asks the Court to quash the Logan Circuit Court
indictment from 1978.
axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction. “As courts of limited jurisdiction,
federal courts may exercise only those powers authorized by
the Constitution and statute.” Fisher v.
Peters, 249 F.3d 433, 444 (6th Cir. 2001). “If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b), the writ of mandamus has been abolished.
“Relief previously available through [writs of
mandamus] may be obtained by appropriate action or motion
under these rules.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(b). “[U]nder
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (All Writs Statute) federal courts may
issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions, including writs in the nature of
mandamus.” See Haggard v. Tennessee, 421 F.2d
1384, 1385 (6th Cir. 1970). However, “[i]t is settled
that a federal court has no general jurisdiction to issue
writs of mandamus where that is the only relief
sought.” Id. at 1386. Such is the case here.
Petitioner seeks only mandamus relief. “In the absence
of special statutory authority, [a federal court] can issue
writs of mandamus only as ancillary to and in aid of
jurisdiction otherwise vested in it.” Id.
While 28 U.S.C. § 1361 gives the district courts
“original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of
mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to
the plaintiff” (emphasis added), Petitioner asks this
Court to compel the Commonwealth of Kentucky to perform an
act. The Commonwealth is not an officer, employee, or agency
of the United States.
because Petitioner is requesting that his indictment be
quashed, which would in turn invalidate his conviction, the
requested relief is more in the nature of a habeas matter
than mandamus. See Bolt v. Caruso, No. 06-14507,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40845, at *10 (E.D. Mich. May 22, 2008)
(“All of the relief that the petitioner seeks is based
entirely on the invalidity of his state court convictions and
sentences. None of that relief can be granted through
mandamus. The petitioner must seek a writ of habeas corpus. .
. .”). Petitioner has previously sought federal habeas
review of his Logan Circuit Court conviction. Long v.
Seabold, No. 1:03-cv-P206-R (W.D. Ky. Apr. 12, 2004) (DN
3) (noting that Petitioner has filed over 47 habeas cases
challenging the validity of his Logan Circuit Court
conviction). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A),
“[b]efore a second or successive application permitted
by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant
shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order
authorizing the district court to consider the
application.” Consequently, absent authorization from
the Sixth Circuit, this Court is without jurisdiction to
entertain any habeas request. See also Brennan v.
Wall, 100 Fed.Appx. 4 (1st Cir. 2004) (observing that
courts have regularly held that 28 U.S.C. § 1651 may not
be used to evade the strictures of § 2254);
Halliburton v. United States, 59 Fed.Appx. 55, 57
(6th Cir. 2003) (holding that a federal prisoner could not
use the All Writs Act to circumvent the AEDPA's
prohibition against the filing of a second or successive
motion to vacate sentence brought under 28 U.S.C. §
2255); Johnson v. MacLaren, No. 15-10668, 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 47821, at *304 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 13, 2015)
(holding that § 2254 and not § 1651 was the proper
mechanism for the petitioner to challenge the
constitutionality of his state conviction).
because the Court is without jurisdiction to grant the relief
requested, the action will be dismissed by separate Order.
 Petitioner attached an opinion from
the Kentucky Supreme Court to his petition (DN 1-1, Long
v. Epley, et al., No. 97-SC-545-MR (Ky. May 21, 1998).
This opinion indicates that Petitioner pled guilty to these
crimes on July 17, 1979. It then states: “The record is
contradictory as to whether [he] pled guilty or stood trial
on the murder charge, but it appears he ...