All Courts |
Federal Courts |
US Federal District Court Cases |
District Court, District of Columbia |
2012-01 |
-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F I L E D FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA .IAN 1 7 2012 C|erk. U.S. Distrlct & Bankruptcy MARCEL LIONEL SE_]QUR, ) Courts for the Dlstrlct of columbia ) Petiti0ner, ) ) v. § Civil Action No. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, ) ) Respondent ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on review of 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 deny the petition. Petitioner seeks an order compelling the Federal Bureau of Prisons to issue a decision on the appeal of his inmate grievance to the BOP’s Central Offlce. He explains that the Central Offlce "asked for an extension of time up to September ll, 201 l, to respond to the administrative appeal," and that the BOP neither has answered nor requested additional time to do so. Pet. at 2. Mandamus relief is proper only if "(1) the plaintiff has a clear rightrto 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 Counly Valley v. Regan, 709 F.Zd 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 Bcmkers Lzfe & Cas. C0. v. Holland,
346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). "If the inmate does not receive a response within the time allotted for reply, including extension, the inmate may consider the absence of a response to be a denial at that level."
28 C.F.R. § 542.18. Petitioner may treat the Central Offrce’s lack of a timely response as a denial of his appeal. The Court concludes that petitioner has not demonstrated his entitlement to mandamus relief, and his petition will be denied. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date. o /%,l/ U t?e'/§'1s{r:‘c4t/;%ge Date: U/ %)L
Document Info
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2012-0064
Judges: Judge James E. Boasberg
Filed Date: 1/17/2012
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014