Sanders-Bey v. Salazar ( 2010 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED
Ravenna Sanders-Bey, MAY 19 2010
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No.
Ken Salazar,
Defendant. 10 U830
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The plaintiff has filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees and a pro se
complaint. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The plaintiff is identified as a member of the Washitaw Nation of Muurs, and this case is
identified as a putative class action related to Cabell v. Salazar, 96-cv-1285 (JR) (D.D.C.).
Compl. at 1-3. Making reference to an "Indigenous Washitaw Contract" dated June 20, 1797,
and confirmed and ratified by Congress on April 29, 1816, see Compl. at 3, the plaintiff seeks
relief in the form of orders for two writs of mandamus, one "in the nature of a Subrogation /
Indemnification Action for both 'compensatory' and 'exemplary' damages," and the other for
"'just compensation' in an amount assessed by the Court for Fifth Amendment 'takings' .... "
Grounds and Relief Sought at 2.
The request for mandamus relief requires that this complaint be dismissed. The remedy
of mandamus "is a drastic one, to be invoked only in extraordinary circumstances." Allied
Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). Only "exceptional circumstances"
warranting "a judicial usurpation of power" will justify issuance of the writ. Gulfstream
s
Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (internal quotation marks
omitted)); see also Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 473 F.3d 345,353 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (stating that
mandamus is "an extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary cases") (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Mandamus is available 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." In re Medicare Reimbursement Litigation, 414 F.3d 7, 10 (D.C.
Cir. 2005) (quoting Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). With respect to the
first two requirements, mandamus is available "only where the duty to be performed is
ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. The law must not only
authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable." Lozada
Colon v. Us. Dep't a/State, 170 F.3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (per curiam)(internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
The complaint does not, and on these facts cannot, establish either that the plaintiff has a
clear right to the relief requested or that the defendant has a clear duty to perform a ministerial,
clearly defined, and peremptory act. Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
A separate order accompanies this memorandu
Date: ~ States District Judge
2