Court Opinion

ID: 2664096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-04 03:17:23.713706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:19.034616
License: Public Domain

FILED

JUN 29 2011
Cl K, . . ‘ `
uNrrEl) srArEs DISTRICT COURT c.,§r'¢s i’o?th[§'§i'§‘§fi§ §?'<';'L'i`ffi’§§ia

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BARBARA M. BUSH, )
Petitioner, §
v. § Civil Action No.  1 
KENNETH J. CARROLL, et al., §
Respondents. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on review of petitioner’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the
application and deny the petition.

Mandamus relief is proper only if "(l) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the
defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff."
Councz`l ofandfor the Blind ofDelaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.Zd 1521, l533 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden of showing that [his] right to

337

issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas

Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Lzfe & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384
(1953)). Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is discretionary, he has no clear right to
relief and mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466
U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any of these elements.

Petitioner seeks an order compelling employees of the United States Department of

Housing and Urban Development to respond to her correspondence Absent any credible

allegations demonstrating petitioner’s clear right to relief and respondents’ clear duty to act, the

petition must be denied. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued

M-\

Uniréd srYS'BiScri¢/t Judg@

separately on this same date.

Date:

G/zo/?w