Taylor v. Conti

District of Columbia

Taylor v. Conti

20 F. Supp. 3d 219, 2014 WL 885702

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 22, 2014

DocketCivil Action No. 2014-0288

StatusPublished

This text of 20 F. Supp. 3d 219 (Taylor v. Conti) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taylor v. Conti, 20 F. Supp. 3d 219, 2014 WL 885702 (D.D.C. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reggie B. Walton, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s application to proceed in for-ma pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition.

According to the petitioner, “[t]he CIA and its agents and Director [are] using a technology called voice to skull ... to harass [the petitioner] and use him to gather intelligence without his consent.” Pet. ¶ 3. According to the petitioner, this technology “allowed a microwave phone call directly to [the petitioner’s] brain” in such a way that the CIA can “collect intelligence from [the petitioner’s] surroundings wherever he went.” Id.; see id. ¶ 4. When the petitioner complained to defendants Conti and Fisher, these respondents allegedly “ordered a psych evaluation” rather than assist him. Id. ¶ 5. In this action, the petitioner demands a writ of mandamus “enjoining these officers and agents ... to cease and desist the conspiratorial actions and harassing communications.” Id. ¶ 6.

Mandamus relief is proper 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 ba,nc). The party seeking mandamus has the “burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’ ” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)). This petitioner addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reggie B. Walton, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s application to proceed in for-ma pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition.

According to the petitioner, “[t]he CIA and its agents and Director [are] using a technology called voice to skull ... to harass [the petitioner] and use him to gather intelligence without his consent.” Pet. ¶ 3. According to the petitioner, this technology “allowed a microwave phone call directly to [the petitioner’s] brain” in such a way that the CIA can “collect intelligence from [the petitioner’s] surroundings wherever he went.” Id.; see id. ¶ 4. When the petitioner complained to defendants Conti and Fisher, these respondents allegedly “ordered a psych evaluation” rather than assist him. Id. ¶ 5. In this action, the petitioner demands a writ of mandamus “enjoining these officers and agents ... to cease and desist the conspiratorial actions and harassing communications.” Id. ¶ 6.

Mandamus relief is proper 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 ba,nc). The party seeking mandamus has the “burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable.’ ” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953)). This petitioner addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Supp. 3d 219, 2014 WL 885702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-conti-dcd-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack