Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Muhammad v. Pilcher

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

April 30, 2015

TEREASA PILCHER, Chief Deputy Clerk, Hot Springs Circuit Court; et al., Respondents.


JOE J. VOLPE, Magistrate Judge.

The following recommended disposition has been sent to United States District Judge Kristine G. Baker. Any party may serve and file written objections to this recommendation. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection. If the objection is to a factual finding, specifically identify that finding and the evidence that supports your objection. An original and one copy of your objections must be received in the office of the United States District Court Clerk no later than fourteen days from the date of the findings and recommendations. The copy will be furnished to the opposing party. Failure to file timely objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact.

If you are objecting to the recommendation and also desire to submit new, different, or additional evidence, and to have a new hearing for this purpose before either the District Judge or Magistrate Judge, you must, at the time you file your written objections, include the following:

1. Why the record made before the Magistrate Judge is inadequate.

2. Why the evidence to be proffered at the new hearing (if such a hearing is granted) was not offered at the hearing before the Magistrate Judge.

3. The details of any testimony desired to be introduced at the new hearing in the form of an offer of proof, and a copy, or the original, of any documentary or other non-testimonial evidence desired to be introduced at the new hearing.

From this submission, the District Judge will determine the necessity for an additional evidentiary hearing. Mail your objections and "Statement of Necessity" to:


Petitioner, Habeeb Muhammad, filed a pro se Writ of Mandamus asking this Court to issue a "declaratory order requiring Respondents proceed with the prosecution" of a felony warrant by having Mr. Muhammad served and brought to trial in Hot Springs County, Arkansas, within 180 days. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Complex in Coleman, Florida, and wishes to be extradited to Hot Springs County to resolve the warrant based on his alleged forgery of checks. (Id. )

However, since Younger v. Harris was decided, it is well-established that federal courts should abstain from meddling with impending state litigation. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). "It is difficult to think of a greater intrusion on state sovereignty than when a federal court instructs state officials on how to conform their conduct to state law." Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984). Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1361[1] only gives district courts "original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United State s..." See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). None of the Respondents are U.S. employees, and extradition of a prisoner on a state charge is state law. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction and has no authority to issue writs governing the actions of the Hot Springs Circuit Court nor any state agency or employee, and this Writ of Mandamus must be dismissed.


1. The Writ of Mandamus (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.