JEFF KAPLAN, United States Magistrate Judge
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is a civil action brought by Petitioner Gregory Claybon, a former inmate in the TDCJ-ID, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. On March 20, 2003, petitioner tendered a five-page pro se complaint to the district clerk. He later filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by petitioner in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. The court now determines that this action is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Petitioner was released from prison after this action was filed.
II.
Petitioner was convicted of indecency with a child and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, petitioner filed an application for state post-conviction relief. On August 21, 2002, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for the resolution of certain evidentiary matters. To date, no action has been taken by the trial judge. By this suit, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to enforce its own order.
A.
A district court may dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action is frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint is without an arguable basis in law if it is grounded upon an untenable or discredited legal theory. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1831. A claim may be deemed to lack an arguable basis in fact only if it is based upon factual allegations that are clearly fanciful or delusional in nature. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992).
B.
Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to enforce an order requiring the trial court to resolve evidentiary issues raised by his state writ. However, a federal court cannot direct a state court or judicial officer to perform an official act where mandamus is the only relief sought. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973), citing Lamar v. 118th Judicial District Court, 440 F.2d 383 (5th Cir. 1971). See also In re Campbell, 264 F.3d 730, 731 (7th Cir. 2001) (federal court cannot control or interfere with state court litigation by way of mandamus); White v. Ward, 145 F.3d 1139, 1139 (10th Cir. 1998) (same); Demos v. United States District Court, 925 F.2d 1160, 1161 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 1082 (1991) (federal court lacks jurisdiction to compel state court to act). The court therefore concludes that this claim is without an arguable basis in law and should be summarily dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner's complaint should be summarily dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).