Sheldon v. James E. Rogers Law Sch.

STEVE SHELDON, Petitioner, v. JAMES E. ROGERS LAW SCHOOL, et al., Respondents.

Civil Action No. 14-1261

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dated: July 24, 2014

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.

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 "(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, Inc. 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 Life & Cas. Co.

Page 2

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. 13-CV-568 and 13-CV-680, 2014 WL 1365039, at *7 (N.D. Okla. Apr. 7, 2014) (finding that, under § 1361, "a mandamus action does not lie against a private corporation"); Banks v. Dusquesne Light Co., No. 2:13-cv-1350, 2013 WL 6070054, at *4 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 14, 2013) (finding that mandamus relief under § 1361 cannot 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.

_________________

United States District Judge