Infinity v. Wiggins, No. 1:2010cv01359 - Document 3 (D. Md. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard D Bennett on 7/9/10. (c/m af 8/9/10)(amf, Deputy Clerk)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND INFINITY, * #C27692 Petitioner, * v. CIVIL ACTION NO. RDB-I0-1359 * DA WN S. WIGGINS Respondent. *** MEMORANDUM This action, submitted application Ironwood 9 as a 28 U .S.c. OPINION 1361 Petition for mandamus to proceed informa pauperis, was filed by Petitioner, State Prison in Blythe, California. The application relief, along with an who is confined at the to proceed without the prepayment of filing fees will be granted and the Petition will be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Petitioner is identified Freedom of Information by the single name "Infinity." Officer for the Social Security Administration, disclose the names of the person or persons responsible Administration's He filed this Petition against the computer for programming seeking to compel her to the Social Security system so that it requires two names in order to generate a Social Security Card.' Title 28 U.S.c. 9 1361 confers "original of the United of any action mandamus to compel Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary V. an officer or employee jurisdiction States to perform In the nature of a duty owed ... " circumstances. See Kerr th United States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard. 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4 Cir. I According to an attachment in another case filed by Petitioner, he submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Social Security Administration. Petitioner received a letter from Respondent Wiggins indicating that his request for records had been received. On May 19, 20 I 0, Respondent sent an explanatory letter to Petitioner and indicated that ifhe disagreed with the decision he could filed a Freedom of Information Appeal within 30 days to the Executive Director for the Office of Privacy. See Infinity v. Ziporkin, Civil Action No. ROB-I 0-1565 (D. Md.), Paper No. I at pgs. 8 & 10. 1987). Only "exceptional circumstances" amounting to "a judicial usurpation of power" or a "clear abuse of discretion" will justify the invocation of the writ of mandamus." Cheney v. u.s. District Court for District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). The conditions necessary for issuance of a writ of mandamus against federal officials are clear. Petitioner must show that he has the clear and indisputable legal right to the relief sought; respondent has a legal duty to do the particular act requested; the act requested is an official act or duty; there are no other adequate means to attain the relief he seeks; and the issuance of the writ will effect right and justice in the circumstances. prerequisites See Kerr, 426 U.S. at 403. defeats a district court's jurisdiction The failure to show any of these under 28 U.S.C. S 1361. See National Association of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 830 F. Supp. 889, 898 (E.O. Va. 1993). In addition, mandamus cannot be used to compel the performance of discretionary duties of federal government officers; mandamus will lie only to compel ministerial acts where the obligation to act is peremptory and plainly defined. The law must not only authorize the demanded action, but require it; the duty must be clear and indisputable. See Central South Carolina Chapter, Soc. of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi v. United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, 551 F.2d 559, 562 (4th Cir. 1977); Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995); First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n. v. Baker, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). The Petition neither establishes that Petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested nor that Respondent has a clear duty to perform a ministerial act that is peremptory and clearly defined.2 Accordingly, the Petition shall be dismissed for the failure to state a claim upon which Administration Petitioner filed a separate petition for mandamus ("SSA") to recognize his legal name change and 2 seeking to compel the Social Security issue a replacement Social Security card relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. S 1361. For the aforementioned reasons, the Petition shall be dismissed. A separate Order shall be entered following the reasoning of this Memorandum Opinion. Av~SI'j Date: ~ fI :8:9 J ;24fl.z.eJU .2. D~t) RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE with "only a one word/single name 'Infinity' on it." See Infinity v. SSA, Civil Action No. RDB-09-3130 (D. Md.). After briefing by the parties, on July 21, 2010, the Court denied mandamus reliefand dismissed the Petition, finding that the SSA had substantially complied with Petitioner's 2009 request in that his SSA records and number reflected the name Infinity and his Social Security card reflected the name '" Unknown' Infinity" to satisfy SSA requirements that the card be issued with a full first name and last name. Id. at Paper Nos. 18 & 19. 3
]]>
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.
