Guevara v. Provinzino et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
PETER MICHAEL GUEVARA,
Petitioner,
v.
LAURA 	PROVINZINO; 	MICHELLE
MARGOLES; 	JOHN 	CHOI; 	and
UNKNOWN 	FEDERAL 	OFFICIALS
AND SUPERVISORY OFFICIALS (DOES
1‐10), in their official capacities only,
Respondents.
Case No. 26‐CV‐1088 (NEB/SGE)
ORDER
Peter Michael Guevara, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has federal and state child‐
pornography convictions. Guevara filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking the
Court to order state and federal officials to investigate perceived misconduct during
Guevara’s prosecutions. (ECF No. 1.)
On preliminary review, United States Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins
recommends denying the petition as frivolous. (ECF No. 5.) As Judge Elkins explains, a
writ of mandamus “is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if he has
exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear
nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (citations omitted). But
the petition asks the Court to compel discretionary duties—the initiation of investigations.
The petition is doubly problematic as to state officials, as the writ does not apply to them.
28 U.S.C. § 1361.
CASE 0:26-cv-01088-NEB-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Guevara objects to the Report and Recommendation and moves for leave to
amend. (ECF No. 10.) Although difficult to discern, nothing in the objection, motion, or
proposed 	amended 	complaint 	impact 	Judge 	Elkins’s 	thorough 	analysis. 	Instead,
Guevara’s filings evidence a misunderstanding of the writ of mandamus. The petition
and proposed amendment are also conclusory, and the Court cannot take Guevara’s
word that evidence is not being preserved or that an investigation is necessary.
The Court thus overrules the objection and denies the motion for leave to amend
as futile. See Hillesheim v. Myronʹs Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897 F.3d 953, 955 (8th Cir. 2018).
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Guevara’s objection (ECF No. 10) is OVERRULED;
2. 	The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) is ACCEPTED;
3. 	The petition for a writ of mandamus of petitioner Peter Michael Guevara
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED;
4. 	This matter is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b);
5. 	Guevara’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
6. 	Guevara’s order for prison officials to be directed to provide a copy of his
prison trust account statement (ECF No. 3) is DENIED AS MOOT;
CASE 0:26-cv-01088-NEB-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
7. 	Guevara is directed to pay the unpaid balance ($350.00) of the statutory
filing fee for this action in the manner prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2),
and the Clerk of Court is directed to provide notice of this requirement to
the authorities at the institution where Guevara is confined;
8. 	Guevara’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 10) is DENIED;
9. 	Guevara’s Motion to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 12) is DENIED AS
MOOT; and
10. 	Guevara’s Motion to Update Official Mailing Address (ECF No. 11) is
DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: May 1, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy E. Brasel
Nancy E. Brasel
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01088-NEB-SGE Doc. 15 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 3