Jensen v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jason Adam Jensen,
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-25-00600-TUC-JGZ
ORDER
On October 27, 2025, Petitioner Jason Adam Jensen, proceeding pro se, filed a
Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Doc. 1.) The Petition names as Respondent the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona and numerous “real parties in interest,”
including the State of Arizona, City of Willcox, Willcox Police Force, Days Inn, Texaco,
Tucson Police Department, Arizona Adult Protective Services, Community Bridges, Pima
County, and Northern Cochise Community Hospital.
Although filed in this Court as a separate action, the caption includes and suggests
that Petitioner seeks relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
not this Court. Petitioner asks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to direct this Court to
vacate General Order 18-19 or direct the District Court to immediately grant Petitioner’s
“Motion for Issuance of Subpoenas Duces Tecum” in a different case pending before this
Court (CV-25-464-TUC-JGZ), and to direct the Clerk of this Court to issue blank
subpoenas to Petitioner under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3) upon request.1 A
1 The address for filing documents with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is: U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939.
Case 4:25-cv-00600-JGZ Document 4 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
federal district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to itself or to another
district court. Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.
1987). Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under the
circumstances presented here, the Petition will be dismissed.2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Doc. 1) is dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
2. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
Dated this 30th day of October, 2025.
Information for self-represented litigants, including filing forms, is available at:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/pro-se-litigants/.
2 Petitioner neither paid the required filing fee nor filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), the Clerk cannot file a civil action without
prepayment of the filing fee, and under § 1915(a), failure to seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis provides an additional basis for dismissal. The Petition is therefore subject to
dismissal on this ground as well.
Case 4:25-cv-00600-JGZ Document 4 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 2