TASCH v. MTC CORRECTIONAL et al

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PANAMA CITYDIVISION
ANTHONY TASCH,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 5:26-cv-16-MW/MJF
MTC CORRECTIONAL, et al.,
Defendants.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This court has preliminarily screened Petitioner’s petition for a writ
of mandamus. Petitioner is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in
forma 	pauperis. 	Petitioner 	requests 	that 	the 	District 	Court 	compel
Defendants to: (1) perform ministerial duties in accordance with Florida
law; and (2) reinstate Plaintiff’s lost gain time. Doc. 1. Because federal
courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to direct state officials
to perform their state duties, the District Court should deny the petition
and close this case.
STANDARD
The 	District 	Court 	is required to 	review Plaintiff’s 	complaint,
identify cognizable claims and dismiss the complaint, or any portion
Case 5:26-cv-00016-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
thereof, if the complaint “(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a)-(b);
see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (applying the same standard to in forma
pauperis proceedings). Determining whether a complaint states a claim
upon which relief can be granted is governed by the standard set forth in
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6); Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11th Cir. 1997).
D ISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, which codified the common-law writ of
mandamus, district courts “have original jurisdiction . . . to compel an
officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform
a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added); see
Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Mandamus relief is available
only to compel an officer of the United States to perform a duty when (1)
the petitioner has a clear right to relief; (2) the respondent has a clear
duty to act; and (3) no other adequate remedy is available. Serrano v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 655 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Cash v.
Barnhart, 327 F.3d 1252, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003)). “These three threshold
Case 5:26-cv-00016-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a court must dismiss
the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d
183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Federal courts generally “have no authority to issue” a writ of
mandamus 	“to 	direct 	state 	courts 	or 	their 	judicial 	officers 	in 	the
performance of their duties.” Cahill v. Kendall, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1322,
1330 (S.D. Ala. 2002). When a petition seeks to have a district court
compel action from state officials, the district court lacks jurisdiction to
grant relief. Lawrence v. Miami-Dade Cnty. State Att’y Off., 272 F. App’x
781, 781 (11th Cir. 2008); Van Sickle v. Holloway, 791 F.2d 1431, 1436
n.5 (10th Cir. 1986); Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973).
As noted above, Petitioner requests the District Court issue an
order compelling state officials and a corporation that operates prisons to
perform their duties in accordance with Florida law. The District Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to do so. See Brown v. Lewis, 361 F.
App’x 51, 56 (11th Cir. 2010); see Hernandez v. Charlotte Corr. Inst. Staff,
2006 WL 3349552, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 17, 2006).
Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner requests that the District
Court compel Defendants to overturn Petitioner’s adverse disciplinary
Case 5:26-cv-00016-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
reports and reinstate his good time, a petition for a write of habeas corpus
is Petitioner’s exclusive remedy. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973); Hale v. Sec’y for Dep’t of Corr., 345 F. App’x 489, 492 (11th Cir.
2009). Thus, Petitioner has an adequate remedy that he can pursue once
he exhausts remedies available under state remedies.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff’s petition for writ of
mandamus; and
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court to close the case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 24th day of February 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b); 	Fed 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72(b). 	Objections 	to 	these
proposed findings and recommendations must be filed
within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
Case 5:26-cv-00016-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
internal use only and does not control. A party who
fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and
recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge 	on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1;
28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:26-cv-00016-MW-MJF Document 6 Filed 02/24/26 Page 5 of 5