1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 SERGIO HURTADODOMINGUEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-00434-JLT-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

WITH PREJUDICE

14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., (Docs. 1, 5) 15 Respondents. 16

17 Sergio Hurtadodominguez, a state prisoner incarcerated at Avenal State Prison, proceeds pro se

18 and in forma pauperis with a filing labeled “ex parte quasi-sovereign writ of mandate” against 19 Respondents United States of America, Immigration and Enforcement Customs and Donald Trump 20 (collectively, “Respondents”), filed on April 14, 2025. (Doc. 1.) The Court construes the filing as a 21 petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 seeking a Court order that would require 22 Respondents to deport Petitioner back to his birth country of origin pursuant to President Donald 23 Trump’s executive order entitled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” issued January 24 20, 2025 (the “Executive Order”)1. (See id.) 25 On April 18, 2025, following a preliminary review of the record, the assigned magistrate judge 26 issued findings and recommendations to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus with prejudice. 27

28 1 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the- american-people-against-invasion/ (last visited May 9, 2025). ——e———— I INE I IIE IID (UII IEE

1 || (Doc. 5.) The magistrate judge determined that the petition fails to meet the factors entitling a party t 2 || mandamus relief because Petitioner has not established that he has a clear right to the relief requested 3 || or that any of the Respondents have a clear duty to act in this case, and he has otherwise failed to sho 4 || that the “extraordinary remedy” of mandamus is clearly warranted. (/d. at 4 (citing inter alia Gonzal 5 |i v. U.S. EN.S., 867 F.2d 1108, 1110 (8th Cir. 1989) Gmandamus not available to convicted alien seekir 6 || to compel immigration authorities to afford him deportation proceeding)).) Furthermore, the 7 || magistrate judge determined that because mandamus relief is not available to compel Respondents to 8 || apply the Executive Order in a manner that grants Petitioner the relief he seeks (i.e., deportation or 9 || removal), leave to amend the petition is unwarranted because any amendment would be futile. (/d. 10 || (citing Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008)).) The Court served 11 || the findings and recommendations on Petitioner and informed him that any objections were due with: 12 21 days. (Ud. at 5 (citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014)).) No objections 13 || have been filed, and the time to do so has now passed.” 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Havir 15 || carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and recommendations are supported | 16 || the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The April 18, 2025, findings and recommendations (Doc. 5) are ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. 19 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 20 21 |} IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn 23 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 ao > Although Petitioner filed a notice of change of address form dated two days after issuance of the 27 || findings and recommendations (i.e., April 20, 2025, see Doc. 7), the Court notes that the new address identifie by Petitioner directs mail to the same institution and same Post Office Box at Avenal State Prison. The only 28 || difference between the former and new address appears to be internal prison housing information, which the Court does not normally add to a prisoner’s mailing address.