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,
Respondent.
Case No. 26‐CV‐1089 (NEB/EMB)
ORDER
Pro se petitioner and prisoner Peter Michael Guevara filed a petition for writ of
mandamus. (ECF No. 1.) The petition asserts that Guevara’s complaint against a judge
was not handled properly and resulted in retaliation. The petition asks the Court to
“[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
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.)
United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	Elsa 	M. 	Bullard, 	on 	preliminary 	review,
recommends denying the petition as frivolous for several reasons: The Petition provides
no basis to believe that Guevara has filed a judicial‐misconduct complaint that has not
been acted upon. (ECF No. 7 at 4.) There is no reason to believe that preservation of
records and other forward‐looking ministerial duties are not already being carried out.
(Id.) And the requested relief shows that Guevara wants his judicial‐misconduct
complaints to be resolved in a specific manner and with a specific outcome, which is
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 3

2
outside of the scope of mandamus. (Id. at 3–4); see Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984)
(“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.”).
Guevara objects to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9) and moves for
leave to amend the petition (ECF No. 10). The Court overrules the objections to the Report
and Recommendation 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) (standard for futility). Both
the objection and the proposed amendment are difficult to follow, but nothing in either
of them impacts Judge Bullard’s analysis. The Petition (and the Amended Petition) are
factually and legally frivolous for the reasons outlined by Judge Bullard. The allegations
are entirely conclusory, and the requested relief is outside the scope of the writ of
mandamus. The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation and denies the Petition.
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. 9) is OVERRULED;
2. 	The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ACCEPTED;
3. 	The petition for a writ of mandamus of petitioner Peter Michael Guevara
(ECF No. 1) is DENIED AS FRIVOLOUS;
4. 	This matter is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b);
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 3

3
5. 	Guevara’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
6. 	Mr. 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;
7. 	Mr. Guevara’s Motions for Extension of Time (ECF Nos. 5–6) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
8. 	Mr. 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 Mr. Guevara is confined;
9. 	Guevara’s Motion to Update Official Mailing Address (ECF No. 8) is
DENIED AS MOOT;
10. 	Guevara’s Motion for Leave to Amend Petition (ECF No. 10) is DENIED;
and
11. 	Guevara’s Motion for Order to Preserve Evidence (ECF No. 12) is DENIED
AS MOOT.
Dated: May 1, 2026 	BY THE COURT:
s/Nancy E. Brasel
Nancy E. Brasel
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-01089-NEB-EMB Doc. 13 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 3