Allen v. Louisiana State

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KENAN ALLEN 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-2343
LOUISIANA STATE 	SECTION: D (1)
ORDER AND REASONS
Petitioner Kenan Allen, a Louisiana State prisoner, filed a pleading styled
“Petition for Writ of Review and the Issues [sic] of a Writ of Mandamus to Compel the
Proper Law State Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court to
Show were Each Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction from Inception of this Case.”1
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the state courts to demonstrate that
of the trial court had jurisdiction to bring petitioner to trial in 2012 as well the state
appellant courts’ authority to review his convictions for second degree murder and
attempted second degree murder. Petitioner appears to contend that his convictions
are unconstitutional and void because the jury verdict was non-unanimous.
Petitioner appears to rely on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, for the Court
to issue a writ of mandamus. That statute, however, does not provide a jurisdictional
basis for petitioner’s request. The law is clear that federal courts possess no general
mandamus powers to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance
of their duties where mandamus is the only relief sought.2
1 R. Doc. 1.
2 Pursuant to the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, “The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United
States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” By its terms, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Case 2:25-cv-02343-WBV-JVM Document 4 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Petitioner previously sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3 The Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Petitioner had failed to make the requisite
prima facie showing necessary for relief and it thus denied Petitioner’s authorization
to file a successive writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.4 Petitioner may not
use his petition for writ of mandamus as a way around the bar on second or successive
habeas petitions in federal court. Instead, as previously directed, Petitioner is
required to “move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the
district court to consider the application” before filing “a second or successive
application” for habeas relief.5 Thus, to the extent that petitioner’s petition for writ
of mandamus is a successive writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court
has no authorization to rule upon it.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Kenan Allen’s petition for writ of mandamus is
DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
New Orleans, Louisiana, January 2, 2026.
_________________________________
WENDY B. VITTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
does not apply to state actors, but only to officers and employees of the United States. As such, this
statutory provision also does not give the Court jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus that
petitioner seeks. See Paige v. Bacarisse, 80 F. App’x 299, 300 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Santee v. Quinlan,
115 F.3d 355, 357 (5th Cir. 1997) and Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 2d 1275 (5th
Cir. 1973)); Russell v. Knight, 488 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1973); Lamar v. 118th Judicial District of
Texas, 440 F.2d 383, 384 (5th Cir. 1971).
3 Allen v. Vannoy, No. 18-8464, 2019 WL 2076690 (E.D. La. May 10, 2019), certificate of appealability
denied, 2020 WL 6580031 (5th Cir. Feb. 18. 2020).
4 Id. In re Kenan Allen, 23-30912 (5th Cir. Feb. 1, 2024) (unpublished).
5 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A).
Case 2:25-cv-02343-WBV-JVM Document 4 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2