Rice v. Windsor

FILED
DEC ~ 8 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
SHAWN RICE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09 2324
)
ELIZABETH WINDSOR II, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on review ofplaintiffs application to proceed in
forma pauperis and pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The court will grant the application,
and dismiss the petition.
Petitioner appears to allege that he is the beneficiary of a trust, the assets of which are
under the control of Her Majesty the Queen of England and the Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury, among others. Further, he appears to demand an accounting of all
trust assets and, when completed, he demands that these assets be handed over to him.
Mandamus relief is proper only if"(I) 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 ofDelaware County Valley 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. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384
(1953)).
3
Petitioner does not establish any of these elements. He fails to demonstrate his clear right
to relief, the respondents' clear duty to perform as he requests, and the lack of any other remedy.
Because the petition does not state a claim upon which mandamus relief may be granted, the
petition will be denied. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued
separately.
a es District Judge