COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                         COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                                NO. 70116 
STATE OF OHIO, EX REL              :
QUANG LY TRAN                      :                               
                                   :       JOURNAL ENTRY
          RELATOR                  :
                                   :            and
     -vs-                          :
                                   :          OPINION
VICTORIA A. CHRISTIAN, ET AL.      :
                                   :
          RESPONDENT               :
                                   :
                                   :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT                                          
OF DECISION:                       JANUARY 29, 1996
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:           WRIT OF MANDAMUS
JUDGMENT:                          WRIT DISMISSED
                                   (MOTION #70161)
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:                                       
APPEARANCES:
FOR RELATOR:                       FOR RESPONDENT:
Quang Ly Tran, Pro Se              Enforcement Counsel
#203-308                           U.S. Attorney General
T.C.I.                             Immigration and Nat. Serv.
P.O. Box 901                       1240 East 9th St., #1917
Leavittsburg, Ohio  44430          Cleveland, Ohio  44199
                                -2-
                           JOURNAL ENTRY
     Relator  avers  that  he  is   incarcerated  at  the  Trumbull
Correctional Institution.  He also avers that, after an immigration
judge  found  him  deportable,  the  Board of  Immigration  Appeals
reversed  that  decision  and  the board's  decision  has  not been
appealed.   Relator further  avers that  he has  an action  pending
which could result in his release.
     Relator  complains  that respondents--enforcement  counsel for
the  United States  Immigration and Naturalization  Service ("INS")
and INS--have refused to notify the proper authorities of the State
of Ohio to release a "holder" which was placed  upon relator during
the  deportation  proceedings.   Relator  requests that  this court
compel respondents to "drop the `Holder'" against relator.
     For the  reasons  stated below,  we  dismiss this  action  sua
sponte.
     In McClung v. Silliman (1821), 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 598, 5 L.Ed.
340, the plaintiff  asserted a pre-emptive  interest in a tract  of
land in Ohio.   The plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus against the
register  of  the land-office  of  the  United States.    After the
federal court determined that "Congress has  vested it with no such
controlling power over the acts of  the ministerial officers in the
given case," Id. at 599, the plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus in
state court.  Although the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that it
had jurisdiction over the  register, it held against the  plaintiff
on the merits.  Id. at 602.  The Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed that judgment but held that "the said Supreme Court of the
                                -3-
state of Ohio, had no authority to  issue a mandamus in this case."
Id. at 605.
     Likewise, this  court lacks the  authority to grant  relief in
mandamus against respondents in this action.
     [T]here is strong authority for  the proposition that, by
     virtue of  McClung v.  Silliman doctrine,  a state  court
     cannot  entertain  a mandamus  proceeding  to  direct the
     action  of a  federal  officer or  agency  relative to  a
     matter committed to the officer or agency ***.
1 Moore, Federal Practice (1978), Paragraph 0.6[5], at 245.
     Clearly, relator's complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
          While sua  sponte dismissal  of a  complaint without
     notice is generally inappropriate, it is proper where the
     complaint is  frivolous or the claimant  obviously cannot
     prevail on the facts alleged in the complaint.  See State
     ex rel. Edwards v.  Toledo City School Dist. Bd.  of Edn.
     (1995),  72 Ohio  St.3d 106,  108, 647  N.E.2d 799,  801,
     citing  Baker v. Dir.,  U.S. Parole Comm. (C.A.D.C.1990),
     916  F.2d 725,  and English v.  Cowell (C.A.7,  1993), 10
     F.3d 434.
State ex rel. Peeples  v. Anderson (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d  559, 560,
653 N.E.2d  371.  In light of McClung,  supra, relator in this case
"obviously cannot prevail  on the facts alleged  in the complaint."
Id.
     Accordingly,  relator's  complaint  is dismissed  sua  sponte.
Relator to pay costs.
     Writ dismissed.
HARPER, J.,     AND
PATTON, J.,  CONCUR
                                        PRESIDING JUDGE
                                             ANN DYKE
.