ANDERSON v. BURKE et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATHENS DIVISION
KYRIMA ANDERSON, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
v. 	: 	Case No. 3:25-cv-169-TES-CHW
:
JUDGE MIKE BURKE, et al., 	:
:
Respondents. 	:
________________________________ 	:
ORDER
Pro se Petitioner Kyrima Anderson, a prisoner confined in the Pulaski State Prison in
Hawkinsville, Georgia, has filed a pleading that was docketed as a petition for mandamus relief
(ECF 	No. 	1). 	Petitioner 	has 	also 	filed 	a 	“dispositive 	motion 	for 	injunctive 	relief
immediately/restitution/rent/remedy/filing of criminal charges/compensation for damages” (ECF
No. 5). For the following reasons, Petitioner must (1) recast her Petition on the Court’s standard
form for cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) pay the $405.00 filing fee in full or file a
complete and proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS of the date of this Order if she wishes to proceed with her claims. Her motion for injunctive
relief is DENIED as moot.
DISCUSSION
The events giving rise to the Petition in this case are not entirely clear. Petitioner seems to
be contending that various officials in the Walton County clerk’s and sheriff’s offices and a Walton
County judge wrongfully evicted her and her family from their home and sold the property. ECF
No. 1 at 1. Petitioner seeks an order from this Court “to rightfully remove the family who is in
possession of this property by way of theft by receiving, ren[]ovate & restore the private property
Case 3:25-cv-00169-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 4

2
and replace every item destroyed in the unlawful eviction.” Id. at 1-2. Petitioner also wants to file
criminal charges related to “the improper disposal of her grandfather’s cre[]mated remains and
destruction of sacred burial ground and spiritual artifacts.” 	Id. at 2. 	She also suggests the new
owners of the property should be charged criminally for engaging in “mortgage fraud.” Id.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 	This means “[t]hey possess only that power authorized by
Constitution and statute,” and the burden of establishing a federal court’s jurisdiction “rests upon
the party asserting jurisdiction[.]” Id. One of the ways a party can establish original jurisdiction
in a federal district court is by asserting a claim that “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). One of the most
common types of cases filed by prisoners—claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—falls under
this jurisdictional umbrella. To state a claim for relief under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that
(1) an act or omission deprived her of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution
or a statute of the United States; and (2) the act or omission was committed by a person acting
under color of state law. Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995).
While some of Petitioner’s allegations could perhaps give rise to § 1983 claims, Petitioner
also appears to request at least two forms of relief that this Court cannot grant her. First, this Court
generally lacks the “power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial
officers in the performance of their duties.” Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Ct., 474 F.2d
1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). 	Second, the Court does not have jurisdiction to institute criminal
proceedings or to order state or federal law enforcement agencies or prosecutors to initiate
investigations or prosecutions. Otero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 832 F.2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987).
Case 3:25-cv-00169-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 4

3
If Petitioner believes that state actors have violated her federal rights and she is not seeking
prohibited relief, then she should recast her Petition on the Court’s standard § 1983 form within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of the date of this Order. The recast complaint must contain a caption
that clearly identifies, by name, each individual that Petitioner has a claim against and wishes to
include as a defendant in this action. Petitioner is to name only the individuals associated with the
claim or related claims that she is pursuing in this action. Petitioner must then tell the Court exactly
how that individual violated her constitutional or federal statutory rights, including (1) what each
defendant did (or did not do) to violate her rights; (2) when and where each action occurred; and
(3) how Petitioner was injured as a result of each defendant’s actions. Petitioner must complete
the entire complaint form.
The recast complaint shall supersede (take the place of) her initial pleading (ECF No.
1). The Court will not look back at this document, or any other document Petitioner has already
filed in this action, to determine whether Petitioner has an actionable federal claim. Thus, any fact
Petitioner deems necessary to her lawsuit should be clearly stated in her recast complaint, even if
Petitioner has previously alleged it in another filing. As stated above, Petitioner must name each
defendant she wishes to sue and if Petitioner fails to link a named defendant to a claim, the claim
will be dismissed. Because Petitioner may include all her claims on her § 1983 form, including
those raised in her motion for injunctive relief, that motion (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a copy of the Court’s standard § 1983 form, marked with
the case number for this case, that Petitioner should use to submit her recast complaint.
In addition, Petitioner has not paid the filing fee or moved for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis in this case. 	Petitioner shall therefore have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date
shown on this Order to either pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a proper motion to proceed without
Case 3:25-cv-00169-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 4

4
the prepayment of the filing fee. This motion must contain a certified copy of Petitioner’s prison
trust fund account statement, as required by law. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 	The Clerk is
DIRECTED to mail Petitioner a copy of the standard form, marked with the case number of the
above-captioned action, that she should use for this purpose.
CONCLUSION
To reiterate, Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of this Order to
(1) recast her pleading on the standard § 1983 form and (2) pay the $405.00 filing fee or file a
complete and proper motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	Petitioner’s motion for
injunctive relief (ECF No. 5) is DENIED as moot. While this action is pending, Petitioner must
also immediately inform the Court in writing of any change in her mailing address. 	Failure to
fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case. There will
be no service of process in this case until further order.
SO ORDERED , this 16th day of December, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00169-TES-CHW Document 7 Filed 12/18/25 Page 4 of 4