ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS

JAMES DONATO, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, directed at Respondents City and County of San Francisco ("CCSF"). Dkt. No. 15. The Court denies Plaintiff's Petition for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint and an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") against Defendants CCSF, San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control ("SFDACC"), and two individual employees of SFDACC. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiff's First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they refused to release her dog, NightShade, from the custody of SFDACC unless Plaintiff agreed to allow the dog to be neutered. Id. at 1-2. The Court granted Plaintiff's ex parte temporary restraining order on May 16, 2014, (Dkt. No. 5), and set a hearing on Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction for May 23, 2014, (Dkt. No. 9).

At the hearing, the Court found that Plaintiff had not met her burden of establishing that she was entitled in a preliminary injunction, and dissolved the temporary restraining order issued May 16, 2014. See Dkt. No. 14. The CCSF agreed during the hearing to provide Plaintiff with a breed determination hearing pursuant to San Francisco Health Code § 43(b) on May 27, 2014, at a time agreeable to Plaintiff. See id.

On May 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus. Dkt. No. 15.1 The Petition states that Plaintiff was "a little over a half hour late to the hearing" on May 27, 2014, and was "deemed to have forfeited her right to a hearing." Id. at 4. An employee of SFDACC subsequently emailed Plaintiff a notice of decision that NightShade is "predominantly a pit bull" and advised Plaintiff to "apply to the courts for a Writ of Administrative Mandamus." Id. The Petition requests relief of an administrative mandamus pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5, as well as compensatory money damages. Id. at 5.2

DISCUSSION

Federal courts — unlike state courts — are courts of limited jurisdiction. "They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) (internal citation omitted).

It is well settled that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to direct either state officials or state courts in the performance of their duties. See Demos v. U.S. Dist. Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); In re Rodriguez, No. C-12-4435 EMC, 2012 WL 4902679, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2012); Brown v. Court of Appeals-Third Dist., No. C-11-3464 TEH, 2012 WL 368376, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2012); Williams v. Supreme Court of Cal., No. C 10-3834 JSW, 2010 WL 4065409, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010). A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a state court or official to take or refrain from some action is "frivolous as a matter of law." In re Rodriguez, 2012 WL 4902679, at *1; Demos, 925 F.2d at 1161-62. As such, this Petition is dismissed. Plaintiff's mandamus remedy, if any, lies in state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.