Sheldon v. James E. Rogers Law School

Opinion

FILED

UNITED sTATEs l)lsrnrcr CoURT JUL 2 ll 20th F0R THE 1)1STRICT oF COLUMBIA '-`»l¢rk. ll-S- Dl=vi¢=t & Bv"krvvt-=y courts forma D|str|ct of columbia

)

STEVE SHELDON, ) )

Petitioner, )

)

v ) Civil Action No. /?"' 6!

)

JAMES E. ROGERS LAW SCHOOL, et al., ) )

Respondents. )

)

MEMGRANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the 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 dismiss the petition.

Through this action, petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing a school of his choice "to act and accept [him] into a graduate school program at a law or medical research university (Law (JD/MBA)[)] or Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT/'MBA)." Pet. at 3 (page numbers designated by petitioner). 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." Council of and for the Blz`nd of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "bu.rden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable."’ Gulfvtream

Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271. 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Lij?e & Cas. Co.

v, Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). This petitioner addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden. Furthermore, under the mandamus statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1361, petitioner cannot obtain relief as against private or non-federal entities. See, e.g., Meadows v. Explorer Pipeline Co., Nos. l3-CV-568 and l3-CV-68U, 2014 WL 1365039, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2014) (fmding that, under § l36l, "a mandamus action does not lie against

a private corporation"); Banlcs v. Dusquesne Lighr Co. , No. 2:13~<:\/-1350, 2013 WL 6070054, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Nov. l4, 2013) (finding that mandamus relief under § 1361 carmot be obtained against utility companies and their employees)', Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Drexel Chemical Co., 655 F. Supp. 2d 54, 62 (D.D.C. 2009) (concluding that 28 U.S.C. § 1361, does not confer subject matter jurisdiction in case where plaintiff sought to compel private, not federal, entities to act).

The petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied An Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

62/», f

DATE: c /Z)/ United States/District Judge f