Horton v. United States Attorney General

FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3/8/2021
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Court for the District of Columbia
WILLIE HORTON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 21-231 (UNA)
)
)
UNITED STATES )
ATTORNEY GENERAL et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, appearing pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and an application
to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
A writ of mandamus is available to compel an “officer or employee of the United States or
any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus actions
are reserved for “extraordinary situations.” In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Mandamus relief is warranted where “(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.” Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The “word ‘duty’ in § 1361 must be narrowly
defined, and [the] legal grounds supporting the government’s duty to [petitioner] must ‘be clear
and compelling.’ ” In re Cheney, 406 F.3d at 729 (citations omitted). The petitioner bears the
burden of showing that his right to the writ is “clear and indisputable.” Id.1
Petitioner is a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Florence, Colorado. The alleged
facts are based on petitioner’s criminal prosecution and conviction in 1989. See U.S. v. Horton,
217 F.3d 842 (4th Cir. 2000) (appeal from denial of habeas “challenge to July 20, 1989, conviction
for first degree murder of another inmate”). In this case, petitioner seeks to compel the production
of “exculpatory” material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See Pet. at 3-16.
In a separate motion, petitioner asserts that “this Court has the power to enjoin the agency from
withholding agency records improperly withheld.” Mot. at 2 [Dkt. # 4].
Because direct appeal and habeas corpus provide redress for unlawful convictions, and the
Freedom of Information Act provides redress for improperly withheld agency records, petitioner
fails at a minimum to satisfy the above-listed third requirement for obtaining a writ of mandamus.
See Boyer v. Conaboy, 983 F. Supp. 4, 6 (D.D.C. 1997) (“where ‘habeas is an available and
potentially efficacious remedy, it is clear beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not
appropriately lie’”) (quoting Chatman–Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1988));
In re Horton, 619 Fed. App’x 262 (4th Cir. Oct. 19, 2015) (per curiam) (“Mandamus may not be
used as a substitute for appeal.”); Pickering–George v. Registration Unit, DEA/DOJ, 553 F. Supp.
2d 3, 4, n.1 (D.D.C. 2008) (“The exclusive nature of the FOIA precludes mandamus relief.”) (citing
Johnson v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 777 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).
Consequently, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d
1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (A dismissal with prejudice is warranted upon determining “that ‘the
allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the
deficiency.’”) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
(other citation omitted)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/_______________
AMIT P. MEHTA
Date: March 8, 2021 United States District Judge
2