UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

____________________________________ ) JOHN T. PICK

ERING- GEORG E ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-753 (R BW) ) ALCOHOL T OBACCO TAX & ) TRADE BUREAU et al., ) ) Defendan ts. ) ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON The plaintiff, John T. Pi cker ing- Geor g e, proc eeding without prepay ment of fe es, filed this

pro se c omplaint seeking relief under the Fr eedom of

I nformation Ac t (“ F OI A”) , 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006). Such a

n action must be dismissed any time the Court determines that the c omplaint fails

to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B )(ii) (2006)

. Be cause the complaint does not state a claim upon which r elief ma y be g rante d, the ac tion will be
dismiss ed.
I n a complaint that is incoher ent and a lmost i ncompre hensible, the plaintiff state s that [T] HE REQUEST I S FOR TO REGI STER, REGI STRATI ON REQUI REMENTS, TAX FO RMS, TO BE RECEI VED AN D RETURNED TO SAI D ADMI

NI STRATI ON. [T] HE DEMAN D OF $50,000 FI FTYTHOUSAND DOL L ARS, FAI L URE TO RESPOND, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4) (E) & (F ) (F OI A) FREEDO M OF I

NFO RMATI ON ACT, F RCP . RUL E. 55(a) (e) “DEF AUL T”, I N WHI CH I S I DENTI FI ED AS SANCTI ONS AS [ A] DETERRENT, OR COERCI VE SANCTI ONS, “AGA I NST DEFE NDANT S,” ADMI NI STRATI ONS, DEPARTMENTS, DI VI SI ONS, OFF I CI AL S, THE DEF ENDAN TS VI OL ATED TH EE UNI TED STATES FED ERAL CONSTI TUTI ON OF L I BERTY I NTEREST, RI GHT TO B EAR ARMS, DUE PROCES S, AND THE F REEDOM OF I NFO RMATI ON ACT (F OI A)Id. at 3 (spelling , punctuation, emphasis and a lterations as in the orig inal). The pla intiff further

alleg es that on Nove mber 5, 2009 he sent a letter , presumably to the defe ndants, stating tha t [I ]T I S NOW OVER (90) NI NETY DAYS THAT THE ADMI NI STRATI ONS OF THE NAMED (DEF ENDAN T’S-RESPONDENT’S) OR ANY OF THE OTHER ADMI NI STRATI ON I

N REGARDS TO THE L AWS OF CONGRESS, APPL I CATI ON HAS NOT RESP ONDED , PL AI NTI FF “HAS NOT” RECEI VED ANY FROM SAI D ADMI NI STRATI ONS AGENCI ES OR DEPARTMENTS. THERE I S [A] L EGAL STANDARD FOR AN ADMI NI STRATI ON OB L I GATI ON TO REL EASE RECORDS I S TRI GGERED ONL Y BY [A] PROP ER(FO I A) FREEDO M OF I NFO RMATI ON REQUEST I N WHI CH WAS DONE BY PL AI

NTI FF , “L I CENSI

NG,” I NCL UDES ADMI

NI STRATI ON, AGENCY PROCES S RESP ECTI NG THE GRANT, RENEWAL , CONDI TI ONI

NG OF [A] “NAT I ONAL FI RE ARMS ACT,” REGI STRATI ON OF FI RE ARMS APPL I CATI ON,” TRANSFER TAX, FED ERAL CONSTI TUTI ON AND I NTERSTATE COMMERCE CL AUSE OF [A] L I SCENSE. Complaint at 2 (spelling, punc tuation, emphasis and alter ations as in the orig inal).
Relief under

the FO I A is available only upon a showing that an ag ency improperly withheld ag ency

rec ords that wer e prope rly reque sted. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)( 4)(B ); McG ehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 10 95, 1105 ( D.C. Cir. 1983). This complaint does not appea r to arise from an attempt
to seek a g ency

rec ords, but rathe r fr om the plaintiff’s attempt to obtain a lice nse for , and to

reg ister, a f

irea rm. Acc ording ly , the complaint does not state a claim upon which r elief unde r 1
the FO I A may

be g rante d. Although Picke ring -Ge org e make s ref ere nce to se vera l constituti onal amendme nts, see Compl. at 1, the complaint does not appea r to prese nt either a

discernible or

a viable c onstructive

The Court take s judicial notice that this is not t he first F OI A ca se the plaintiff ha s filed 1 in an attempt to obtain a license and re g ister a f irea rm. See P icke ring-George v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Ex plosives, Civil Action No. 07-899 ( RJ L ), 2008 WL 501375, *1 (D.D.C. F eb. 22, 2008) ( interpre ting a simil ar F OI A complaint as one seeking to restore plaintiff’s g un privileg es under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) a

nd dismiss ing the action).
2constitutional claim. To the extent the plaintiff intends to assert a due proce ss claim for “ the

absenc e of a

mecha nism for the re storation of fe dera l firea rms privileg es,” suc h a cla im has
alre ady been r ejec ted. See P icke ring-George , 2008 WL 501375, *1-2 (c iting Black v . Snow, 272 F. Supp. 2d 21, 28 (D.D .C. 2003)). To the extent the complaint seeks re lief in mandamus, see Compl. at 1, it must be denied.
Mandamus is ava ilable only if “(1) the plaintiff has a

clea r rig ht to relief; (2) the def endant ha s a
clea r duty to act; and ( 3) there is no other ade quate r emedy available to plaintiff.” In re M edicare
Reimbursem ent Litigat ion, 414 F.3d 7, 10 ( D.C. Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). With respec t to the first two require ments, mandamus is available “only wher e the duty

to be per formed is ministerial and the obliga tion to act pere mptory and
clea rly define d. The law must not onl y authorize the dema

nded ac tion, but require it; the duty
must be clea

r and indisputable.” Lozada Col on v. U.S. De p’t of State , 170 F.3d 191 ( D.C. Cir. 1999) (inter

nal quotation marks and c itation omit ted). On the fac ts alleg ed, the plaintiff c annot
establish that he is entitled to mandamus re lief for firea rms licensing and re g istration.
Acc ording ly , as “the fac ts alleg ed af firmatively

prec lude re lief,” Razzoli v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 230 F.3d 371 , 377 ( D.C. Cir. 2000) (interna l quotation marks omitted), the complaint
will be dismiss ed for

failure to state a c laim upon which re lief may be g rante d. A sepa

rate order

acc ompanies this memorandum opinion.

/s/ REGGI E B. WAL TON Date: Ma y 17, 2010 United States District J udg e

3