Case: 12-10674 Document: 00512115639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 16, 2013
No. 12-10674
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
STEWART AZELL CROSS,
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:12-CV-450
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stewart Azell Cross, Texas prisoner # 1089282, appeals the district court’s
dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) of his motion requesting a loan
of his trial court records from the state appellate court, which the district court
construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. He argues that the state courts
had a duty to provide him with his records in preparation of the instant appeal.
Cross also asserts that the district court should not have construed his motion
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Case: 12-10674 Document: 00512115639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/16/2013
No. 12-10674
as a mandamus request. He contends that the federal courts were authorized
to order the state appellate court to loan him the state records.
We review the district court’s dismissal for abuse of discretion. See Siglar
v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). “[A] federal court lacks the
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.” Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1257,
1275-76 (5th Cir. 1973). The district court therefore lacked the authority to
compel the state appellate court to loan Cross the desired records. See id. at
1276; Santee v. Quinlan, 115 F.3d 355, 356-57 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cross the requested relief.
See Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. Consequently, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Cross’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.
This is Cross’s third appeal from the district court’s denials of his attempts
to obtain copies of his trial records from the state appellate court. Cross is
WARNED that further filing of repetitious or frivolous appeals attempting to
compel production of the state records will result in the imposition of sanctions,
which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability
to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to his court’s jurisdiction.
2