Opinion
Civil Action 22-0394 (UNA)
02-18-2022
RAJ K. PATEL, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE JOE BIDEN, et al., Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RANDOLPH D. MOSS, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se “Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the Honorable Joe R. Biden or his Honor's Interior Officer to Enforce the Privileges and Immunities Clause Protections of the National Government of the United States Constitution to the Plaintiff - Raj K. Patel 28 U.S.C. § 1391” (ECF No. 1). According to petitioner, he is subjected to “Weapon S, ” described as “a high-tech psychiatric weapon which indu[c]es stress and depression[.]” Pet. at 3 (page numbers designated by CM/ECF). Although petitioner has notified past and current Presidents of the United States of his predicament, see, e.g., Id. at 4, 6, no President has enforced the Privileges and Immunities Clause with respect to petitioner, see, e.g., id. at 9-10.
A writ of mandamus “compel[s] 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. “[M]andamus is ‘drastic'; it is available only in ‘extraordinary situations.'” In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). 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 the plaintiff, ” Thomas v. Holder, 750 F.3d 899, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2014), is mandamus relief granted. Petitioner's claim does not meet his burden.
The Court will grant the petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.
A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.