[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
April 2, 2008
No. 07-15487 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-22344-CV-PCH
BRUCE A. LAWRENCE, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 2, 2008)
Before ANDERSON, BLACK and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bruce A. Lawrence, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus in district court. Lawrence sought relief related to an ongoing
state case. Finding a federal district court may not issue a writ of mandamus
against state officers or interfere with, or dismiss, an ongoing state criminal case,
the district court sua sponte dismissed the petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915,
because Lawrence failed to state a claim.
Lawrence does not challenge the district court’s findings of law regarding
the denial of his petition for a writ of mandamus, but rather merely repeats the
factual allegations underlying the petition. Accordingly, he has waived any
argument the district court erred when it dismissed his petition. See Greenbriar,
Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989) (holding when a
party “elaborates no arguments on the merits as to [an] issue in its initial or reply
brief . . . the issue is deemed waived”).
Even if the argument is not waived, “federal courts have no general power to
issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the
performance of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.” Lamar v.
118th Judicial Dist. Court of Tex., 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971).1 Because the
1
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), this
Court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to close of business on September 30, 1981.
2
only relief Lawrence sought was a writ of mandamus compelling action from state
officials, not federal officials, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief
and did not err in dismissing the petition.
As for the request to dismiss the state case, a federal court may not interfere
with ongoing state criminal proceedings except in the most extraordinary
circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 91 S. Ct. 746, 750 (1971). Under the
Younger abstention doctrine, to justify federal intervention, a petitioner “must
show manifest bad faith and injury that is great, immediate, and irreparable,
constituting harassment of the plaintiff in the exercise of his constitutional rights,
and resulting in a deprivation of meaningful access to the state courts.” Allee v.
Medrano, 94 S. Ct. 2191, 2210 (1974). Lawrence’s state criminal case was still
pending and he made no showing of manifest bad faith that is great, immediate,
ane irreparable, or lack of meaningful access to the state court. Thus, the district
court could not interfere in the state case.
AFFIRMED.
3