HUNTER v. UNITED STATES SENATORS et al, No. 1:2021cv00246 - Document 8 (D.D.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 08/24/2021. (zsb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
HUNTER v. UNITED STATES SENATORS et al Doc. 8 Case 1:21-cv-00246-UNA Document 8 Filed 08/24/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FILED AUG 24 2021 MICHAEL HUNTER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES SENATORS et al., Respondents. Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 21-246 (UNA) MEMORANDUM OPINION Petitioner, appearing pro se, has filed a Petition for a writ of mandamus, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. Also pending is Petitioner’s motion to use a P.O. Box address, ECF No. 4. The Court will grant the application and motion and then dismiss this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint is frivolous). 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 the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The governing statute “is only a source of jurisdiction for district courts to exercise writs of mandamus to employees of the Executive branch,” United States v. Choi, 818 F. Supp. 2d 79, 84 (D.D.C. 2011) (emphasis in original), and relief is reserved for “extraordinary situations,” In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (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”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-00246-UNA Document 8 Filed 08/24/21 Page 2 of 2 Petitioner seeks to compel “United States Senators Cruz, Hyde-Smith, Marshal, Kennedy, [and] Hawley [to] immediately resign from their office as United States Senators, for attacking the Constitution of the United States and attempting to thwart, interfere, obstruct a Lawful election[.]” Pet. at 1. Apart from the fact that the U.S. Senators are not Executive branch employees, the separation of powers doctrine precludes the judiciary from compelling the resignation of a duly elected member of Congress based on his official acts. The instant Petition lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact,” thus qualifying as a frivolous action. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. _________/s/____________ EMMET G. SULLIVAN United States District Judge Date: August 24, 2021 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
