Ansari v. Department of Education

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 20, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00561
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MUSTAFA ANSARI ) 4 ) Plaintiff/Petitioner, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-00561-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, ) 7 TRAINING AND REHABILITATION; and ) SHANNA JUDIE, Case Manager ) 8 ) Defendants/Respondents. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 1), filed by pro se 11 Petitioner Mustafa Ansari (“Petitioner”). Petitioner then filed a Request for Hearing on the 12 Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 7). Respondents, Department of Employment, Training and 13 Rehabilitation (“DETR”) and Shanna Judie (collectively, “Respondents”) filed a Response, 14 (ECF No. 8). Petitioner then filed a Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 9), and a separate Motion to 15 Compel Respondents to Issue Petitioner’s Unemployment Benefits, (ECF No. 10). 16 Respondents filed a Motion to Strike the second Motion to Compel, alleging that the motion 17 was a “sur reply” for which Petitioner did not previously seek leave from the Court to file, 18 (ECF No. 11). 19 Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF 20 No. 15), to which Respondents submitted a Response, (ECF No. 16). 21 Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial 22 Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18), to which Respondents submitted a Response, (ECF No. 23 22). 24 Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Cease Contemptuous Conduct, 25 (ECF No. 19). 1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s action 2 because Petitioner failed to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to filing his Writ of 3 Mandamus. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus and DISMISSES 4 without prejudice Petitioner’s action. Because the Court concludes that it does not have 5 jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus, the Court STRIKES Petitioner’s Request 6 for Hearing, (ECF No. 7), Respondents’ Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 11), Petitioner’s Motion 7 for Preliminary Injunction, (ECF No. 15), Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial 8 Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 18), and Petitioner’s Motion to cease Contemptuous Conduct, 9 (ECF No. 19). 10 I. BACKGROUND 11 This case arises from the payment of unemployment benefits related to the COVID-19 12 pandemic. Plaintiff’s filings are largely devoid of factual allegations. According to the 13 exhibits attached to Respondents’ Response, (ECF No. 8), Petitioner filed a claim for Pandemic 14 Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) benefits with the DETR on March 8, 2020. (See generally 15 January 18, 2022 Decision, Ex. B to Resp., ECF No. 8-2). Petitioner was initially deemed 16 eligible for PUA benefits and received such benefits through November 28, 2020. (Resp. 2:21– 17 22, ECF No. 8). However, Petitioner received a letter dated March 26, 2021, notifying

18 Petitioner that the DETR had investigated his PUA benefits claim and found that he was “not 19 entitled to PUA benefits” for multiple reasons including, among other things, (1) failure to 20 demonstrate that his unemployment was COVID-19 related, and (2) failure to show that he met 21 the requirements for PUA under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 22 (“CARES”) Act. (PUA Determination Letter at 2, Ex. A to Resp., ECF No. 8-1). Petitioner 23 appealed the DETR’s findings that he failed to meet the requirements for PUA under the 24 CARES Act. (January 18, 2022 at 2, Decision, Ex. B to Resp.). Following a hearing, the DETR 25 Appeal Referee modified its January 18, 2022 decision, noting that Petitioner “is entitled to 1 [PUA] benefits from March 8, 2020 onward providing the [Petitioner] is otherwise eligible.” 2 (Id. at 3, Ex. B. to Resp.) 3 Because the March 26, 2021 letter disqualified Petitioner from receiving PUA benefits 4 on multiple grounds, the DETR informed Petitioner that he was required to appeal each 5 disqualifying factor. (Resp. 2:19–21). On May 3, 2022, following Petitioner’s second appeal, 6 the Appeal Referee determined that “the preponderance of evidence clearly established that 7 [Petitioner’s] loss of employment was not related to COVID-19 beyond April 12, 2020” and 8 thus he could not establish eligibility for PUA benefits after April 12, 2020. (May 3, 2022 9 Decision at 3, Ex. D to Resp., ECF No. 8-4). 10 Before the DETF Appeal Referee published its second decision, Petitioner filed his 11 Request for Writ of Mandamus in this Court on April 2, 2022. (Writ, ECF No. 1). Petitioner 12 sought mandamus to compel Respondents to “process the payments due to Petitioner by a final 13 decree” of the Appeal Referee. (Id. 2:17–20). 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “The party seeking mandamus has the burden of showing that its right to issuance of the 16 writ is clear and indisputable.” Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 96 (1967) (internal quotation 17 marks omitted). “[M]andamus is not to be used to compel a judge to exercise his discretion in a

18 particular way.” Monoz v. U.S. Dist. Court., 446 F.2d 434, 436 (9th Cir. 1971). “[O]nly 19 exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the 20 invocation of this extraordinary remedy.” Will, 389 U.S. at 95 (citation omitted). To determine 21 whether this is an “extraordinary” case in which a writ of mandamus should be issued, the 22 Court considers the Bauman factors: 23 (1) whether the petitioner has no other means, such as a direct appeal, to obtain the desired relief; (2) whether the petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in any way 24 not correctable on appeal; (3) whether the district court’s order is clearly erroneous 25 as a matter of law; (4) whether the district court’s order is an oft repeated error or 1 manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules; and (5) whether the district court’s order raises new and important problems or issues of first impression. 2 3 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. 4 Court, 557 F.2d 650, 655–56 (9th Cir. 1977)). Not all factors need to be met. See, e.g., Cole v. 5 U.S. Dist. Court, 366 F.3d 813, 817 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Evidence showing that all the Bauman 6 factors are affirmatively presented by a case does not necessarily mandate the issuance of a 7 writ, nor does a showing of less than all, indeed of only one, necessarily mandate denial; 8 instead, the decision whether to issue the writ is within the discretion of the court.”). While the 9 Bauman factors provide a framework for analysis, they should not be mechanically applied. Pit 10 River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Serv., 615 F.3d 1069, 1079 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Cole, 366 F.3d at 11 817). 12 The third factor of Bauman—clear error by the district court—“is often dispositive of 13 the petition . . . . [C]lear error is, if not necessary, a ‘highly significant’ factor.” Cole, 336 F.3d 14 at 820. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 As a preliminary matter, the Court construes Petitioner’s Motion to Compel, (ECF No. 17 9), and Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Respondents to Issue Petitioner’s Unemployment 18 Payments, (ECF No. 10), as replies to Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Writ of 19 Mandamus, (ECF No. 8). See, e.g., Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) 20 (noting that the court “construes pro se pleadings liberally”). 21 Petitioner contends that this Court should issue a writ of mandamus because the Appeal 22 Referee concluded Petitioner is “lawfully entitled to unemployment benefits,” and thus 23 Respondent has “deprived the petitioner of his right to pandemic unemployment payments 24 when they are due.” (Writ 3:1–2). Respondents argue that Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus is 25 /// 1 nonjusticiable because Petitioner had not exhausted all administrative remedies available to him 2 prior to filing it. (See generally Resp.). 3 While Petitioner is correct that the Appeal Referee’s January 18, 2022 decision 4 concluded that Petitioner was entitled to PUA benefits beginning on March 8, 2020, the Appeal 5 Referee modified its decision on May 3, 2022, and held that Petitioner was ineligible for 6 benefits after April 12, 2020 because Petitioner failed to show that his lack of employment was 7 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (See generally May 3, 2022 Decision, Ex. D to Resp.,). 8 Petitioner filed his pending Writ of Mandamus on April 2, 2022, prior to the Appeal Referee’s 9 May 3, 2022 decision. 10 “A person generally must exhaust all available administrative remedies before initiating 11 a lawsuit, and failure to do so renders the controversy nonjusticiable.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. 12 Thorpe, 170 P.3d 989, 993 (Nev. 2007). As the Nevada Supreme Court explained, the practical 13 justification undergirding the exhaustion requirement is to provide “administrative agencies an 14 opportunity to correct mistakes” and “resolve disputes without the need for judicial 15 involvement” to “conserve[] judicial resources.” Id. at 993–994 (footnote omitted). Here, an 16 individual’s requirement to exhaust all administrative remedies is a jurisdictional requirement; 17 Nevada Revised Statute (“N.R.S.”) 612.525(1) mandates, “Any decision of the Board of

18 Review in the absence of an appeal therefrom as herein provided becomes final 11 days after 19 the date of notification by electronic transmission or mailing thereof, and judicial review 20 thereof is permitted only after any party claiming to be aggrieved thereby has exhausted 21 administrative remedies as provided by this chapter.” In other words, a court lacks jurisdiction 22 over a petitioner’s administrative appeal unless all administrative remedies are first exhausted. 23 Petitioner was allowed, as a matter of right, to appeal to the Nevada Board of Review. 24 See N.R.S 612.515(1) (“An appeal to the Board of Review by any party must be allowed as a 25 matter of right if the Appeal Tribunal’s decision reversed or modified the Administrator’s 1 determination.”). Petitioner received notice of his right to appeal on the Appeal Referee’s May 2 3, 2022 decision, which stated, “[t]he decision is final unless a signed appeal to the Board of 3 Review is filed within 11 days of the decision’s mailing date or unless good cause for the delay 4 is shown.” (May 3, 2022 Decision at 1, Ex. D to Resp.). However, Petitioner elected not to 5 appeal the decision; the practical effects of Petitioner’s decision rendered the Appeal Referee’s 6 May 3, 2022 decision final. See N.R.S. 612.510(2) (“The decision [of an Appeal Referee] is 7 final unless an appeal to the Board of Review or a request for review or appeal to the Board of 8 Review is filed, within 11 days[.]”). 9 Although the Court recognizes that Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus was pending when 10 the Appeal Referee published its May 3, 2022 decision, this does not cure the jurisdictional 11 defect here. See, e.g., Pedroza-Padilla v. Gonzalez, 486 F.3d 1362, 1365 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2007) 12 (noting that “failure to exhaust administrative remedies [ ] deprives the court of jurisdiction to 13 hear the matter” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Kame v. Employment 14 Security Department, 769 P.2d 66, 68 (Nev. 1989) (“When a party seeks judicial review of an 15 administrative decision, strict compliance with the statutory requirements for such review is a 16 precondition to jurisdiction by the court of judicial review. Noncompliance with the 17 requirements is grounds for dismissal of the appeal.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).

18 Moreover, mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy” for which Petitioner “has the burden 19 of showing that its right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.” Will v. United States, 20 389 U.S. 90, 95–96 (1967) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The Ninth Circuit has held 21 that “clear error is, if not necessary, a ‘highly significant’ factor” when determining whether to 22 issue a writ of mandamus. Cole, 336 F.3d at 820 (citation omitted). Without passing on the 23 merits of Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus, the Court observes that the relief sought by Petitioner 24 is not supported by the Appeal Referee’s May 3, 2022 decision. Petitioner contends that he is 25 entitled to unemployment benefits totaling $76,000, and requests that this court compel the 1 DETF to pay Petitioner the unpaid employment benefits. (See Writ 3:5–6). Petitioner relies on 2 the January 18, 2022 Appeal Referee decision in arguing that “Petitioner is lawfully entitled to 3 unemployment benefits.” (See January 18, 2022 Decision, Ex. B to Response, ECF No. 8-2). 4 However, as discussed, that decision was modified by the Appeal Referee’s May 3, 2022 5 decision, which concluded that Petitioner was not eligible for benefits after April 12, 2020. (See 6 May 3, 2022 Decision, Ex. D to Resp.). As it currently stands, Petitioner is not lawfully 7 entitled to unemployment benefits. The Court cannot compel officials to give Petitioner 8 benefits to which the Appeal Referee found he was not entitled. 9 For these reasons, the Court concludes that it does not have jurisdiction over Petitioner’s 10 present action.1 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus. 11 Moreover, because the Court dismisses Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus for lack of 12 jurisdiction, the Court additionally strikes the following motions filed by the Parties as moot: 13 (1) Petitioner’s Request for a Hearing on the Writ of Mandamus; (2) Respondents’ Motion to 14 Strike; (3) Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction; (4) Petitioner’s Motion for Summary 15 Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment; and (5) Petitioner’s Motion to Stop Respondent’s 16 Contemptuous Conduct. 17 ///

18 /// 19 /// 20

21 1 Additionally, although not addressed by Respondents, the Court would likely lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of 22 mandamus to compel the DETR, a non-federal entity, to take the action requested by plaintiff. Specifically, the federal mandamus statute provides, “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature 23 of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (emphasis added). In other words, federal courts lack jurisdiction or 24 authority to issue mandamus to direct non-federal entities or officials, except in limited circumstances as prescribed by Congress. See Clark v. State of Washington, 366 F.2d 678, 681 (9th Cir. 1966) (“The federal courts 25 are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties[.]”). 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus, (ECF No. 1), is 3 DENIED and Petitioner’s action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Hearing, (ECF No. 7), 5 Respondents’ Motion to Strike, (ECF No. 11), Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 6 (ECF No. 15), Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment, (ECF 7 No. 18), and Petitioner’s Motion to Stop Respondent’s Contemptuous Conduct, (ECF No. 19) 8 are STRICKEN as moot. 9 Petitioner is instructed to exhaust his administrative remedies before seeking judicial 10 review.2 11 DATED this __2_0__ day of April, 2023. 12 13 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 Although Petitioner failed to appeal the Appeal Referee’s May 3, 2022 decision in a timely manner, under N.R.S. 612.515(1), Petitioner may appeal the decision if Petitioner can show there was a good cause for his delay in filing the appeal. The Court does not opine whether good cause exists.