What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
ROBERTS v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA et al.
No. 2, Misc.
Argued March 31, 1950.
Decided June 5, 1950.
Max Radin, acting under an assignment by the Court, argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.
No appearance for respondents.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner, who is confined in a California state prison, sought to file a petition in forma pauperis for a writ of injunction in the District Court below. That court denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, holding that petitioner was not entitled to the benefits of 28 U. S. C. § 1915 because he was no longer a “citizen” as required by that section. The District Court reached that decision in reliance on California Penal Code § 2600, which provides that one sentenced to imprisonment for a term of years is deprived of his civil rights for the period of imprisonment. The decision of the District Court is in error. Citizenship for the purpose of in forma pauperis proceedings in the federal courts is solely a matter of federal law. Congress has not specified criminal convictions, except for desertion and treason, as grounds for loss of citizenship. 8 U. S. C. § 801.
Petitioner thereafter filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for allowance of an appeal from the order of the District Court. The denial by a District Judge of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable order. 28 U. S. C. § 1291; see Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). The Court of Appeals, however, held that it had “no power to grant an application for allowance of an appeal,” and dismissed the petition.
Finally, petitioner filed in this Court a motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in rare cases. Ex parte Collett, 337 U. S. 55, 72 (1949), and cases there cited. Because of the ambiguous state of this record, and the fact that a denial of this motion will not prejudice petitioner in further attempts to proceed in forma pauperis, the motion must be denied.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0