LOVETT
v.
WARDEN, PINELLAS COUNTY JAIL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Lovett sought a writ of mandamus against state officials in the Pinellas County Sixth Judicial Circuit Court State Attorney Department, alleging violations of his rights. The district court denied the petition, holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus directed at state agencies, officials, or entities.
A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus directed at state agencies, state officials, or other state entities. Under Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, independent federal actions for writs of mandamus are abolished, and writs under the All Writs Statute are available only where mandamus was available before Rule 81(b)'s adoption.
“A district court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to order a state agency, a state official, or other state entity to perform a duty.”
Establishes the core holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over mandamus petitions directed at state officials or agencies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLovett filed an action for a writ of mandamus independent of any underlying civil rights action. He sought the writ directed at the Respondent Pinella…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse All Writs Act cases and more on FLexlaw
Lovett applies for a writ of mandamus. As explained below, a federal district court cannot grant the requested relief.
Lovett files this action for a writ of mandamus independent of a civil rights action. Rule 81(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, abolishes an independent federal action for a writ of mandamus. Under the All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, federal courts may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdiction. Writs in the nature of mandamus are available only in instances where, before adoption of Rule 81(b), the remedy of mandamus was available. Consequently, even if part of an underlying civil rights action, Lovett could not gain the requested relief because, as explained next, mandamus was not available pre-Rule 81(b) based on the alleged facts.
Lovett requests a writ of mandamus “directed to the Respondent Pinellas County Sixth Judicial Circuit Court State Attorney Department” for allegedly "infringing upon his inalienable rights, laws, rules, and regulations.” (Doc. 1 at 1) A district court lacks
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to order a state agency, a state official, or other state entity to perform a duty. Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court of Texas, 440 F. 2d 383 (5th Cir. 1971). [fn 1] See also Campbell v. Gersten, 394 F. App'x 654 (11th Cir. 2010) [fn 2] ("The district court also lacked authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the state court and its officers to reinstate his motions to vacate and consider those motions on the merits.”) (citing Lamar, 440 F. 2d at 384); Lawrence v. Miami-Dade County State Att'y Office, 272 F. App’x 781, 781 (11th Cir. 2008) (“Because the only relief Lawrence sought was a writ of mandamus compelling action from state officials, not federal officials, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief and did not err in dismissing the petition."); Bailey v. Silberman, 226 F. App’x 922, 924 (11th Cir. 2007) (“Federal courts have no jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus directing a state court and its judicial officers in the performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought."). No authority exists to issue a mandamus in this instance.
Lovett's "Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition" (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The clerk must close this case.
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on March 19, 2025.
STEVEN D. MERRYDAY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[fn 1]: Unless later superseded by Eleventh Circuit precedent, a Fifth Circuit decision issued before October 1, 1981, binds this court. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F. 2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
[fn 2]: "Unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, but they may be cited as persuasive authority.” 11th Cir. Rule 36-2.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bonner v. City OF Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981)
- Lamar v. 118TH Jud. Dist. Court OF Tex., 440 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1971)