Jenson v. Whitaker

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 21, 2025
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2025-0051
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TRACY A. JENSON, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-00051 (UNA) ) ) MICHAEL WHITAKER, ) ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tracy A. Jenson, appearing pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus under 28

U.S.C. § 1361 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons,

the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the petition.

Jenson filed this action on January 2, 2025, to compel then-Administrator of the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) Michael Whitaker “to correct a violation of FAA personnel

regulations . . . committed against 165 FAA air traffic controllers before he resigns on January

20.” Pet., ECF No. 1 at 1. This case is yet another iteration of Jenson’s unsuccessful lawsuits

where he, as a former air traffic controller, has claimed that the FAA “breached a collective

bargaining agreement by failing to implement a new pay system properly and to apply pay raises

retroactively.” Jenson v. FAA, 2012 WL 2308156, at *1 (D.D.C. June 11, 2012) (citing cases);

see Brodowy v. United States, 482 F.3d 1370, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (concluding that Jenson

and other plaintiffs “were not entitled to the benefits of the two-step increase in pay received by

controllers who transferred at a time when the [General Schedule] system was in effect for all the

facilities”); Jenson v. Huerta, 828 F. Supp. 2d 174, 177, 181 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting in dismissing consolidated cases on res judicata grounds that Brodowy and those cases “clearly arise out of the

same pay dispute” and that the “Federal Circuit’s decision was final and made on the merits”).

Whitaker resigned as FAA Administrator on January 20, 2025. 1 The mandamus statute

confers upon federal district courts jurisdiction “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. The

ensuing writ forces “an official to perform a duty required in his official capacity.” Fornaro v.

James, 416 F.3d 63, 69 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Thus, Whitaker’s “successor is automatically substituted

as a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Mandamus relief is “an option of last resort,” Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 714 (D.C.

Cir. 2023) (citation omitted), that is available only if “(1) 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.” Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533

(D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). If “all three of these threshold requirements” are not met, the Court

must dismiss the petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ferriero, 60 F.4th at 714. “In

other words, mandamus jurisdiction under § 1361 merges with the merits.” Lovitky v. Trump, 949

F.3d 753, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (cleaned up). Because the facts forming the basis of this action

have been “conclusively establish[ed] against [Petitioner],” Jenson v. Trottenberg, 2024 WL

379820, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2024), none of the requirements for mandamus relief is met.

Therefore, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/______________ TANYA S. CHUTKAN Date: April 21, 2025 United States District Judge

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Whitaker_(government_official).