IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

Ronald David Brown, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) Case No. 2:12-cv-392 

 ) JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

Barack Obama, et. al., ) Magistrate Judge Kemp 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER

 

On May 7, 2012, Plaintiff, Robert David Brown, filed a 

complaint pro se, seeking a writ of mandamus against President 

Barack Obama and United States Attorney General Eric Holder. He 

also sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the 

following reasons, the Court will grant the application to 

proceed in forma pauperis and will recommend that the complaint 

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted. 

I. 

According to the complaint, on or about January 28, 2011, 

Mr. Brown sent a petition to President Barack Obama. The 

petition questioned the President’s economic policies and 

demanded that the President respond. Mr. Brown alleges that the 

White House received that petition on February 28, 2011, and has 

not responded. 

Mr. Brown also claims that on or about December 23, 2011 he 

sent to the Attorney General, via U.S. certified mail, a 

petition entitled “Application Pursuant to title 16 U.S.C.A., 

section 3375, Enforcement, subsection (d) Reward and incidental; 

and title 28 U.S.C.A., section 524, Availability of 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

appropriations, subsections (c)(1), (B), (C), (D), and (E)(i), 

requesting payments of rewards.” Mr. Brown alleges that the 

Attorney General received this petition on or about January 4, 

2012 and has not responded. 

Mr. Brown seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1361 to compel both the President and the Attorney General to 

respond to his petitions. He claims that the President and the 

Attorney General, by not responding to the petitions, have 

failed to perform their legal duties in violation of Mr. Brown’s 

First Amendment right to petition the government. 

II.

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma 

pauperis, “[t]he court shall dismiss the case if . . .(B) the 

action . . . is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a 

claim on which relief can be granted. . . .” The purpose of 

this section is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial 

resources and which a paying litigant would not initiate because 

of the costs involved. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 

(1989). A complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the 

plaintiff fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational 

basis in law or fact. See id. at 327-28. A complaint may not 

be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 

be granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Pro se complaints 

are to be construed liberally in favor of the pro se party. 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court of Appeals 

has held that section 1915(e)(2)’s initial screening requirement 

applies to complaints filed by non-prisoners as well as 

prisoners. Baker v. Wayne County Family Independence Agency,75 

Fed. Appx. 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003)(citation omitted). The 

complaint will be evaluated under these standards. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

III.

Mr. Brown brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1361. 

Section 1361 provides that “[t]he district courts shall have 

original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to 

compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency 

thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” The Supreme 

Court has held that a “writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 

U.S.C. §1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff 

only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if 

the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler 

v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616-617 (1984). “Mandamus is available 

only if: ‘(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the 

defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other 

adequate remedy available to the plaintiff.’” Carson v. U.S. 

Office of Special Counsel, 633 F.3d 487, 491 (6th Cir. 

2011)(citation omitted).

IV. 

 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution 

reads, in part, “Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the 

right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress 

of grievances.” Although only Congress is mentioned in the 

First Amendment, the Supreme Court has held that “the right to 

petition extends to all departments of the Government.” 

California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 

508, 510 (1972). In his complaint, Mr. Brown claims that the 

First Amendment right to petition the government not only allows 

him to petition these officers of the Executive Branch for the 

redress of grievances, but imposes a duty on them to respond. 

However, his claim relies on an incorrect reading of the 

petition clause. 

“Nothing in the First Amendment or in this Court’s case law 

interpreting it suggests that the rights to speak, associate, 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
4

and petition require government policymakers to listen or 

respond to individuals’ communications on public issues.” 

Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 

271, 272 (1984); see also Smith v. Arkansas State Highway 

Employees, Local 1315, 441 U.S. 463 (1979); Apple v. Glenn, 183 

F.3d 477, 479 (6th Cir. 1999)( “A citizen’s right to petition 

the government does not guarantee a response to the petition or 

the right to compel government officials to act on or adopt a 

citizen’s views”). 

 The guarantees of the First Amendment are not unlimited. 

While it provides important protections permitting citizens to 

“speak freely and petition openly” without governmental 

interference or retaliation, it “does not impose any affirmative 

obligation on the government to listen [or] to respond.” Smith, 

441 U.S. at 465. 

The right to petition is the freedom to express one’s will 

to the government, and Mr. Brown has been able to do just that. 

It is not a right that requires the government to reciprocate. 

Citizens “have no constitutional right as members of the public 

to a government audience for their policy views.” Knight, 465 

U.S. at 286. As the Court of Appeals has recognized, “neither 

in the First Amendment nor elsewhere in the Constitution is 

there a provision guaranteeing that all petitions for the 

redress of grievances will meet with success.” Canfora v. Olds, 

562 F.2d 363, 364 (6th Cir. 1977). Nor is it practical for the 

government to be required to respond to every petition it may 

receive. “It is inherent in a republican form of government 

that direct public participation in government policymaking is 

limited.” Knight, 465 U.S. at 285. If a citizen is unhappy 

with the response or lack of response by a government official, 

he or she may register that disapproval at the polls. Id. 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

Accordingly, neither the President nor the Attorney General 

have a duty to respond to Mr. Brown’s petitions, and his 

complaint has failed to state a claim on which relief can be 

granted. 

V. 

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Brown’s request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is granted. In addition, it is 

recommended that the complaint be dismissed. If this 

recommendation is adopted, a copy of the complaint, the Report 

and Recommendation, and the dismissal order should be mailed to 

the defendant. 

 PROCEDURE ON OBJECTIONS

 If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, 

that party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, 

file and serve on all parties written objections to those 

specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection 

is made, together with supporting authority for the 

objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de novo

determination of those portions of the report or specified 

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. 

Upon proper objections, a judge of this Court may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may 

recommit this matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). 

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object 

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the 

right to have the district judge review the Report and 

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the 

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981). 

/s/ Terence P. Kemp________ 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00392-JLG-TPK Doc #: 2 Filed: 06/29/12 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: <pageID>