Martin

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 O.Z. MARTIN, Case No. 20-cv-01133-EMC

8 Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9 v. Docket No. 1 10 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 11 Respondent.

12 13 14 O.Z. Martin has filed a “petition for writ of mandate” in which he complains that the 15 California Supreme Court refused “to do justice in performing its ministerial duties” by failing to 16 conduct a proper and adequate inquiry into his claims. Docket No. 1 at 1, 2. He seeks a writ 17 commanding the California Supreme Court to entertain his claims about the lawfulness of his 18 2000 conviction from the Alameda County Superior Court and the resulting sentence that was 19 enhanced due to prior convictions upon guilty pleas in 1982 and 1994. 20 The federal mandamus statute provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 21 of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or 22 any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The federal 23 …