Moody v. U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

AMARI J. MOODY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 26-01255 (UNA)

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) HUMAN SERVICES, OFFICE ) FOR CIVIL RIGHTS et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a “Combined Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under the Administrative Procedure Act” and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the complaint.

Plaintiff, a resident of Dacula, Georgia, sues the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and a Regional Manager and an Equal Opportunity Specialist in their official capacities. Compl. Caption. Plaintiff claims a host of serious “impairments arising from complications following Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery performed February 26, 2025.” Compl., ECF No. 1 at 5. He turned to OCR to investigate and filed this action after OCR dismissed all but one of his complaints. See id. at 4 (attributing twelve “closed complaints” to “systematic jurisdictional misclassification”).

Plaintiff alleges “a documented pattern of systematic enforcement failure” in OCR’s handling of his “thirteen OCR complaints filed . . . between February 2025 and September 2025, id. at 3, that accused “covered entities” in Georgia of violating “HIPPA Privacy Rule and Section

2

504 obligations in connection with Plaintiff’s documented post-surgical condition.” Id. at 5. The “last active complaint” was closed on June 9, 2026. Pl.’s Third Supplement to Complaint, ECF No. 6 at 1; see ECF No. 6-1 at 8 (closure letter).

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. 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).

A “court may properly issue a writ of mandamus only if the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined.” Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (cleaned up). A writ of mandamus cannot issue for discretionary acts, which generally includes “an agency’s refusal to institute proceedings,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985), or “to take enforcement action,” Sierra Club v. Jackson, 648 F.3d 848, 855 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Similarly, the APA excepts from judicial review “agency action [that] is committed to agency discretion by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).

Plaintiff’s allegations establish neither a clear right to relief under the mandamus statute nor a nondiscretionary act reviewable under the APA. His summary of the reasons OCR provided for the case closures, see Compl. at 9-10, and supporting exhibits undermine the notion that OCR

3

failed in its duty to review Plaintiff’s complaints. See, e.g., Compl. Ex., ECF No. 1-2 at 1-3 (OCR’s comprehensive closure letter issued after having “carefully reviewed” Plaintiff’s “complaint against Mount Sinai and . . . determined to resolve this matter informally through the provision of technical assistance to Mount Sinai.”). Therefore, this case will be dismissed.

A separate order accompanies this opinion.

_________/s/____________

AMIT P. MEHTA

Date: August 25, 2026 United States District Judge