Sejour v. Federal Bureau of Prisons ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • 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