Guevara v. Tunheim et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Peter Michael Guevara,
Petitioner,
v.
John R. Tunheim; Unknown and
named federal judicial officers and
staff; and Sherburne County
correctional officer and supervisors,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-1089 (NEB/EMB)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Peter Michael Guevara, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus naming a judge of this District and
several unidentified federal and county officials as respondents. (See Dkt.
No. 1.) The gist of the mandamus petition is that Mr. Guevara previously
filed a judicial-misconduct complaint against the judge named as a
respondent. (Petition (Dkt. No. 1) at 3.) Mr. Guevara believes the complaint
was not handled appropriately and that, as a result, he was retaliated
against by placement into administrative segregation while he was in county
jail. (Id. at 4.) Mr. Guevara now asks that the Court “[i]ssue a writ of
mandamus directing Respondents to properly process and refer Petitioner’s
judicial-misconduct complaints”; “[o]rder preservation and production of all
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 1 of 6

2
responsive records and communications”; “[e]njoin further retaliatory acts
related to Petitioner’s protected activity”; and “[g]rant such other relief as
justice requires.” (Id. at 8.)
Mr. Guevara’s petition is now before me for preliminary review
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (“The court shall review, before docketing, if
feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint
in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity
or officer or employee of a governmental entity.”).1 As a result of that review,
I conclude Mr. Guevara’s petition is frivolous and should be denied
accordingly. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
“The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, 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) (citing cases). “Where the
right of the petitioner is not clear, and the duty of the officer, performance of
which is to be commanded, is not plainly defined and peremptory, mandamus
1 Mandamus proceedings, unlike habeas proceedings, are civil actions for purposes
of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and § 1915A even where the mandamus petition does not attack
the legality of the petitioner’s confinement. See Rindahl v. United States Attorney’s
Office for Minnesota, No. 18-CV-3237 (JRT/ECW), 2019 WL 1993827, at *3 (D.
Minn. May 6, 2019) (collecting cases); Shelton v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No.
24-CV-2887 (NEB/DTS), 2024 WL 4533350, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 21, 2024).
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 2 of 6

3
is not an appropriate remedy.” United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v.
Helvering, 301 U.S. 540, 543 (1937).
Mr. Guevara’s petition confuses the appropriate scope of mandamus. It
is not a vehicle for litigating alleged past harms, but for forcing someone2 to
perform a nondiscretionary function that they have not already done. A
petition for a writ of mandamus is not the appropriate vehicle for raising (for
example) complaints related to past alleged retaliation, (see Pet. at 7 (alleging
that the “retaliation has already occurred”)), or for challenging the disposition
of a prior judicial-misconduct complaint, or for litigating anything else that
might have happened previously. Mandamus looks forward, not backward.
What, specifically, does Mr. Guevara want going forward? He asks that
the respondents “properly process and refer Petitioner’s judicial-misconduct
complaints.” (Pet. at 8.) But the use of “properly” reveals that Mr. Guevara is
not seeking the performance of a purely nondiscretionary function. Rather,
he wants his prior judicial-misconduct complaints to be resolved in a specific
manner and with a specific outcome. This goes beyond the scope of
mandamus, which can be used (in rare circumstances) to force someone to
make a decision, but not to dictate “what particular way that decision shall
2 That someone, moreover, must be “an officer or employee of the United States or
any agency thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mr. Guevara therefore cannot seek a writ of
mandamus from this Court directed at county officials.
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 3 of 6

4
be rendered.” Kimberlin v. Commission to Five Civilized Tribes, 104 F. 653,
654 (8th Cir. 1900); see also Larsen v. Nordbye, 181 F.2d 765, 766 (8th Cir.
1950).
The Petition provides no basis to believe that Mr. Guevara has filed
any judicial-misconduct complaints that have sat languishing through
inaction, or that any federal officer—judicial or non-judicial—has failed to
undertake a purely ministerial task owed under the law with respect to such
a complaint. Nor is there any reason to believe that any of the other forward-
looking ministerial (or non-ministerial) duties that Mr. Guevara is asking to
be performed, such as preservation of records, are not already being carried
out.
The mandamus petition is frivolous and should be denied. Mr.
Guevara remains responsible for the $350.00 statutory filing fee for this case,
which must be paid in installments over time. He must pay the unpaid
balance of the statutory filing fee for this action in the manner prescribed by
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The Clerk of Court should be directed to provide
notice of this requirement to the authorities at the institution where Mr.
Guevara is confined so that the statutory filing fee may be collected.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings
herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT:
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 4 of 6

5
1. The petition for a writ of mandamus of petitioner Peter Michael
Guevara (Dkt. No. 1) be DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS.
2. This matter be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
3. Mr. Guevara’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No.
2) be DENIED AS MOOT.
4. Mr. Guevara’s order for prison officials to be directed to provide a
copy of his prison trust account statement (Dkt. No. 3) be
DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Mr. Guevara’s Motions for Extension of Time (Dkt. Nos. 5–6) be
DENIED AS MOOT.
6. Mr. Guevara be 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 be directed to
provide notice of this requirement to the authorities at the
institution where Mr. Guevara is confined.
Dated: March 11, 2026 s/Elsa M. Bullard
Elsa M. Bullard
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or
judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written
objections to a magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations
within 14 days after being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a
copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses
must comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 7 Filed 03/11/26 Page 6 of 6