1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBBIE POWELSON, Case No. 22-cv-01809-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 10 CITY OF SAUSALITO, et al., Docket No. 74 11 Defendants.

12 13 14 Mr. Powelson has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. In terms of relief, he asks the 15 Court to “clarify[] that the settlement agreement does not bar [his] parking ticket appeals in State 16 Court” and to order that “the trial process for the traffic tickets shall not be hindered by the 17 settlement agreement.” Pet. at 4. Mr. Powelson’s request for relief is DENIED. 18 First, a writ of mandamus is improper because this Court “does not exercise appellate 19 jurisdiction over [the] state court.” United States v. Choi,

(D.D.C. 2011); 20 see also Pit River Tribe v. United States Forest Serv.,

(9th Cir. 2010) (stating 21 that a “writ of mandamus has traditionally been used . . . to confine an inferior court to a lawful 22 exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to 23 do so”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Second, Mr. Powelson’s request for relief implicates Younger abstention. Cf. Zummo v. 25 City of Chi.,

(N.D. Ill. 2018) (“This Court should not intrude on the 26 administrative proceedings as to the impoundment of the car and the allegedly expired license and 27 medallion. Those claims are dismissed without prejudice on Younger abstention grounds.”). 1 the settlement agreement. To the extent he is, he has not provided the Court with a copy of the 2 settlement agreement, nor has he cited to any provision in the settlement agreement to support his 3 request for relief. 4 This order disposes of Docket No. 74. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: October 31, 2022 9 10 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27