Keller v. Kelley et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
DAKOTA KELLER, #S14303,
Petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE KELLEY,
AARON JONES,
and SCOTT SCHMIDT,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 26-cv-00057-SMY
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
YANDLE, Chief District Judge:
Petitioner Dakota Keller filed a “Petition of Mandamus” under 735 ILCS § 5/14-101, et
seq., to challenge his sentence in an undisclosed criminal case in Illinois state court. (Doc. 1). The
petition is subject to preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to
screen prisoner Complaints and filter out portions that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a
claim, or name a party that is immune from suit. Id.
The Petition
According to his handwritten “Petition of Mandamus” filed pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/14-
101, et seq., Keller is an inmate in custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections and is
currently incarcerated at Pinckneyville Correctional Center. 	(Doc. 1, pp. 1-2). 	He is serving a
sentence of 4 years at 50% for resisting a peace officer in violation of 720 ILCS § 5/31-1 (a)(7), a
Class 4 felony. Pursuant to 730 ILCS §§ 5/5-4.5-45(a), a Class 4 felony is punishable by no less
than 1 year and no more than 3 years, unless the Court states on the record that the defendant is
“extended term eligible.” Id. at 2.
Case 3:26-cv-00057-SMY Document 6 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
Keller claims that Judge Kelley and Assistant State’s Attorney Aaron Jones were
responsible for upholding the laws and complying with all sentencing guidelines. Public defender
Scott Schmidt was responsible for warning and/or admonishing him. Even so, the Court failed to
inform Keller on the record that he was extended term eligible, and Respondents advised him to
“cop out to a[n] open plea for a Class 2 felony w[ith] a cap of 6 years.” Id. Then, on the day of
sentencing, they told him it would be a “Class 4 with a 4-year sentence.” Id. The hearing transcript
allegedly confirms that he was not given notice of his extended term eligibility. Keller argues his
sentence is now unlawfully prolonged. 	He seeks immediate release from custody based on the
alleged errors in sentencing him. Id. at 2-3.
Discussion
Two federal statutes govern writs of mandamus: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
Neither authorizes federal courts to grant mandamus relief against state officials. See id.; see also
Leuvano v. State Bar of Tex., No. 11-33-GPM, 2011 WL 334291 at *1 (S.D. Ill., Jan. 29, 2011)
(citations omitted) (“Mandamus relief is not available against state and local officials, including
state judicial officials.”).
Section 1361 limits federal mandamus jurisdiction to actions against a federal officer or
agency and vests the court with authority to issue writs of mandamus compelling the federal officer
or agency to perform a duty owed to the petitioner (emphasis added). 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1361.
Section 1651 does not vest the Court with jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus against state
officials. 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The statute only allows federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or
appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of
law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)(emphasis added). The courts possess no general power to issue writs,
and the statute does not enlarge that jurisdiction. Id.; In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2001).
Case 3:26-cv-00057-SMY Document 6 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
Keller does not refer to either statute in his motion, and he does not establish any elements
required to support a writ of mandamus against the state officials. The fact that Keller brings his
petition pursuant to the statute referenced on the standard form petition for writ of mandamus, i.e.,
735 ILCS § 5/14-101 et seq., also suggests that he intended to file his petition in state court, not
federal court. Keller is free to pursue this relief in state court. However, this federal court lacks
jurisdiction over the petition.
Disposition
The Petition of Mandamus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Keller is ADVISED that the dismissal does not count as one of his three “strikes” under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This dismissal also does not preclude Keller from challenging
his sentence in another forum, including state court. 	The Clerk of Court need not undertake
further efforts to collect a filing fee.
The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to close this case and enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 2/12/2026
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00057-SMY Document 6 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>