T hi s O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee-j udge panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. B eca us e M r . Schoenr ogge i s pr ocee di ng pr o s e, w e r evi ew hi s pl eadi ngs 1 a n d filin g s lib e ra lly. See Hai nes v. Ker ner , 4 0 4 U .S . 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 -2 1 (1 9 7 2 ); How ard v. U. S. B ur eau of

P r is ons , 4 8 7 F . 3 d 8 0 8 , 8 1 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 6, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT TOD D J AY SCHO ENR OG GE, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S A M B R O W N B A C K , D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 07- 3216 ( D . C . N o . 0 7 - C V - 1 0 2 1 - J T M)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , TY M KOVI CH , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antT odd J aySchoenr ogge, appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s the d is m is s a l o f

h is m a n d a m u s a c tio n b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rtfo r t h e D is tr ic t o f K a n s a s . W e h av e jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . R ev iew ing M r. S ch o en rog g e’s fil ing s li b era ll y , w e c o n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rtco rrectl yh eld th at M r. 1-2-

Schoenr ogge fa i l ed t o m eettw o of the l egal pr er equi s i t es form andamus r el i ef. A ccor di ngl y , w e DE NY M r . Schoenr ogge’ s r eques tfora w r i tof m andamus a nd AF F I RM th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s o rd e r o f d is m is s a l. I . BA CKGROUND M r . Schoenr ogge i nvoked 28 U . S. C . § 1361 t o r eques tan or derdi r ect i ng U . S. Senat orSam B r ow nback “ t o cal l forthe i nves t i gat i on and pr os ecut i on” of cert ai n D epartm entof J us t i ce ( “D O J ”) empl oy ees w ho “vi ol at ed fe der al l aw s as a lleg e d in [ P lain tiff ’s] Ju ly1 7 , 2 0 0 6 lette r to M r. B ro w n b a c k ’s o ffice .” R ., V o l. I , Do c . 1 , a t2 . Th e ma g i s tr a t e j u d g e , a f t e rg r a n t i n g l e a v e t o p r o c e e d i n fo r ma pauper i s , r ecomm ended di s m i s s al under28 U . S. C . § 1915( e) ( 2) on the gr ounds of fr i vol ous nes s beca us e M r . Schoenr ogge coul d notes t abl i s h tw o of the pr er equi s i t es t o m andamus r el i ef: a cl eardutyon the partof defendant , and a c lea r rig h t in p lain tiff to th e re lief

so u g h t. M r. S c h o e n ro g g e filed o bjec tio n s to the magi s tr at e j udge’ s deci s i on. T he di s tr i ctcourt , how ever , adopt ed the m ag istrate jud g e’s rea so n ing an d d ism issed the a cti o n . T h e c o u rtalso d en ied M r. S c h o e n ro g g e ’s m o tio n to re c o n sid e r its d e c isio n . M r. S c h o e n ro g g e tim e ly appea l ed. I I . DI S CU S S I ON Sect i on 1361 gr ant s di s tr i ctcourt s author i ty“t o compel an off i ceror e m p lo y e e o f

th e U n ited S tate s o r a n ya g e n c yth e re o f to p e rfo rm a d u tyo w e d to the pl ai nt i ff. ” 28 U . S. C . § 1361. G r antof m andamus r el i ef i s a mat t erof-3-

j udi ci al di s cr et i on, buta pl ai nt i ff mustfi r s ts how el i gi bi l i tybyes t abl i s hi ng “( 1) thathe has a cl earr i ghtt o r el i ef, ( 2) thatthe [de fenda nt ’ s ] dutyt o per form the ac t i n ques t i on i s pl ai nl ydefi ned and pe r empt ory , and ( 3) thathe has no other adequa t e r emedy . ” R i os v. Ziglar , 3 9 8 F . 3 d 1 2 0 1 , 1 2 0 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). “[ W ]e cons i derde novo w hetherthe l egal r equi r ement s fors uch r el i ef a r e pr es ent . ” Mar quez - R am os v. R eno , 69 F . 3d 47 7, 47 9 (10th C i r. 19 95 ). O ur cases, m or eover , have unde r s cor ed thatthe ac t i on r eques t ed mustbe “a nondi s cr et i onary , m i ni s t er i al duty . ” Mar athon O i lC o. v. Luj an , 937 F. 2d 498, 5 0 0 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). M r . Schoenr ogge has pr es ent ed nothi ng thats ugges t s the i nves t i gat i on of thi r d partycr i m i nal conducti s ow ed t o hi m her e. O n appea l he ar gues thatthe r efus al t o pur s ue an i nves t i gat i on “vi ol at ed myC ons t i tut i onal r i ght s t o a Feder al w or kfor ce f

r ee f r om corrupt i on and cr i m i nal s . ” A pl t . B r . at2C . Such a g en era li ze d asse rt ion is no t a “c lear ri g h t” su ffici en t t o b e the b asis fo r a m andamus a ct i on. Separ at el y , and mosts i gni fi cantt o the di s tr i ctcourt , M r . Schoenr ogge fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a dutyon the partof Senat orB r ow nback t o i ni t i at e an inv esti g ati o n . O n ap p ea l M r. S ch o en rog g e a rgu es th at S en ator B row n b ac k ’s m e m b e rsh ip o n th e S e n a te J u d icia ryC o m m itt e e g iv e s h im “ a c lea r d u tyto i nv est i gate cr i m i nal act i vityi n the [D O J] ” and that 18 U . S . C . § 4 est abli shes a duty“t o r eportvi ol at i ons of fe der al l aw s t o the appr opr i at e l egal author i t i es . ”W i th r efe r ence t o hi s m i s pr i s i on al l egat i ons , M r . Schoenr ogge as ked 2 the d istri ct co u rtto “s ee k the c ri m inal p rose cu ti o n o f M r. B row n b ac k , ” R . , V o l. I, D oc. 1, at2, and, m or e s peci fi cal l y , “t o r eportthe cr i m i nal conductof [Sena t or B r ow nback] t o the appr opr i at e l aw enfor cementauthor i t i es w i th a r ecomm endat i on thatthos e author i t i es s eek c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on. ” Id. , D oc. 8, at 2. Fur ther , M r . Schoenr ogge “r eques t [ed] thatthe r ecor d i n thi s m att erbe forw ar ded t o the Et hi cs C om m i t t ee of the U . S. Senat e w i th a r ecomm endat i on that pr ocee di ngs ens ue t o r emove [Senat orB r ow nback] fr om hi s pos i t i on . . . bas ed on hi s vi ol at i on of cr i m i nal l aw s . ” Id. at2- 3. O n appea l , M r . Schoenr ogge e s s e n tia lly m a k e s th e s a m e re q u e s ts o f th is c o u rt . A p lt. B r. a t 2 J , 2 K -2 L , 3 A , 4 A . M r. S ch o en rog g e o ffers n o arg u m en t, n o r cit es to an ylega l auth o ri ty , to su p p o rt th e n o tio n th a t su c h re q u e sts fo r ju d icia l ac tio n a re leg a llyc o g n iza b le in h is m andamus c as e ( i f eve r ) , w hi ch purpor t s t o s eek j udi ci al l y - m andat ed ac t i on by Senat orB r ow nback, noti ndepende ntact i ons bythe court s . A ccor di ngl y , i n the fir s t in s ta n c e , M r. S c h o e n ro g g e h a s n o t e s ta b lis h e d th e fo u n d a tio n fo r o u r r e v ie w . See, e. g. , G ross v. B urggr af C ons tr . C o. , 5 3 F . 3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 4 7 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); Fed. R . A pp. P. 28( a) ( 9) ( A ) ( ar gum ent“mustcont ai n” appe l l ant ’ s “cont ent i ons and the r eas ons forthem, w i th ci t at i ons t o the author i t i es . . . on w hi ch appe l l ant r e l i e s ” ) . F u r th e r mo r e , u n d e rth e c i r c u ms t a n c e s o f th i s c a s e a tth e v e ryl e a s t , we b e lie v e th a t s u c h re q u e s ts fo r j u d ic ia l a c tio n a re e n tir e ly o u t o f p la c e . -4- A p lt. B r. at 2 D . A s th e d istric t co u rt h e ld , ev e n if S e n a to r B ro w n b a c k h a d a d u ty t o cal l foran i nves t i gat i on, s uch a dutyw oul d be di s cr et i onaryand bey ond the re a c h o f m a n d a m u s . See, e. g. , P ow el lv. Katz enbach , 3 5 9 F . 2 d 2 3 4 , 2 3 5 ( D. C. C ir. 1 9 6 5 ) (h o ld in g th a t w rit o f m a n d a m u s a g a in st A tto rn e yG e n e ra l w o u ld n o t li e b e c a u s e th e q u e s tio n o f w h e th e r t o in s titu te p ro s e c u tio n is d is c re tio n a ry). M r . Schoenr ogge’ s ar gum entunder18 U . S. C . § 4 al s o i s unavai l i ng. 2 W hi l e § 4 makes i ta cr i m e t o conce al orfai l t o m ake know n the comm i s s i on of a fel ony , i tappl i es onl yt o thos e “ha vi ng know l edge of the ac tual comm i s s i on of a fel ony . ” 18 U . S. C . § 4. T he onl ybas i s forSenat orB r ow nback’ s al l eged k n o w ledg e is th e lett er M r. S ch o en rog g e w rote to h im . A cc u sati o n s ag ains t th ir d-5-

part i es i n a l ett erar e i ns uffi ci entt o pr ovi de know l edge of the ac tual comm i s s i on o f a fe lo n y , a n d th e re fo re c a n n o t c re a te a d u ty. See Uni t ed Stat es v. B aez , 732 F .2 d 7 8 0 , 7 8 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (h o ld in g th a t an e lem e n t o f § 4 is “ f

u ll k n o w ledg e” that a felon yh ad b ee n co m m itted). B e c a u se M r. S c h o e n ro g g e c a n e sta b lish n e ith e r a “ n o n d isc re tio n a ry ” d u ty n o r a “ clea r ri g h t” t o d em an d an inv esti g ati o n o r pro sec u ti o n , the d istri ct co u rt p r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e d th i s c a s e a s f r i v o l o u s u n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) . Ac c o r d i n g l ywe A F F I R M the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or derand DE NY M r. S ch o en rog g e’s req u est fo r a w ri tof m and am us. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt J er om e A . H ol m es C i r cui tJ udge