Wattleton v. Samuels

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: April 26, 2013
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2013-0587
• Status: Published

Opinion

to

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FoR THE DISTRICT oF CoLUMBIA APR 2 5 2073 Clerk y . Caurr§ fo*r t.hD/st'rict& gankr

) e D/strlct ar Co,gglil;"; DAVID EARL WATTLETON, ) ) Petitioner, ) )

v § civil A¢ti@n N@. 13 t,l587 CHARLES E. SAMUELS, et cll., ) ) Respondents. ) ) MEMORANDUM 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.

Petitioner asserts an entitlement to "needed medical treatment for a mental disorder which has been diagnosed by health care providers," and he alleges "that a combination of inappropriate hospital culture [at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota], the denial of access to the courts, and hostile hospital conditions prevents him from obtaining appropriate psychological/psychiatric care and treatment consistent with statutory and constitutional standards." Pet. at l-2 (page numbers designated by the Court). He demands "a transfer to another institution that is not affiliated with or controlled by" the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Id.

at3.

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 Counly Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). 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 (1988) (citing Bankers Lzfe & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). This petitioner fails to meet his burden, particularly because he fails to demonstrate the absence of any other available remedy. Petitioner has been found not guilty of federal crimes by reason of insanity, see Um`ted States v. Wattleton, 296 F.3d 1184, 1187 (1 lth Cir. 2002) ("The defendant David Earl Wattleton was indicted for making bomb threats, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e), and the jury rendered an insanity verdict. At a post-verdict hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4243(d), the district court determined that Wattleton was not eligible for release."), and the court which ordered his commitment "at any time may . . . modify or eliminate the regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment." 18 U.S.C. § 4243(f).

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

Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: /

M(. l/), V?l} Un 1Zr;;;i:1jg@