Waters

(PS) Bird v. Waters

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 19, 20202:20-cv-00178California582 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DONALD M. BIRD, No. 2:20-CV-0178-TLN-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MAXINE WATERS, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action for mandamus relief. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint. See ECF No. 1. Plaintiff names the following members of the United States House of Representatives as responding parties: (1) Congresswoman Maxine Waters; (2) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; and (3) Congressman Adam Schiff. See id. at 1. Plaintiff seeks an order by way of a writ of mandamus to direct Waters, Pelosi, and Schiff to “Obey all the Immigration Laws.” Id. at 2. According to plaintiff, the responding parties’ support of so-called “Sanctuary” laws in the State of California violated their oaths of office. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), all federal courts may issue writs “in aid of their respective jurisdictions. . . .” In…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.