A motion to dismiss is appropriate only if 'it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proven consistent with the allegations. However, courts generally invoke this statute only to compel agencies to perform specific duties, such as rulemaking, that are required by regulation or by statute. In contrast, 708.12 leaves DOE with complete discretion to decide how and when to implement a final decision. Thus, plaintiff can point to no specific duty that DOE has failed to undertake, since 708.12 does not require any particular action. For this reason, the APA does not provide plaintiff with grounds for the relief he seeks.
Plaintiffs claim for a writ of mandamus suffers a similar fate.
The Court can issue a writ of mandamus 'only where the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory, and p1ainly defined. The litmus test for this standard is whether or not the statute clearly defines the duty, or whether the suggested exercise depends upon a statute or statutes the construction or application of which is not free from doubt. Because 708.12 does not clearly define any duty, but leaves vast, undefined discretion in the hands of DOE, it does form the basis for a writ of mandamus. Finally, plaintiff seeks an injunction that requires DOE to sequester funds from the current META contract, so that DOE could force META to satisfy the judgment. Now, however, there is no reason to continue this injunctive relief, since the Court is unable to compel DOE to take any action, and since the Court must rule against plaintiff on the merits of his other claims.