Court Opinion

ID: 8418479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-03 18:44:16.455487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:48:20.227674
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.
This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellants. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment be affirmed. A writ of mandamus is available to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff. See 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus is appropriate where a public official has violated a “ministerial” duty which is “so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command.” Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Ashcroft, 286 F.3d 600, 605 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 218-19, 50 S.Ct. 320, 74 L.Ed. 809 (1929)). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980). Here, appellants have failed to meet their burden of establishing that appellee had a duty to retract or nullify the designation of Lake Meredith as a federal park.
Pursuant to D.C.Cir. Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.