Taylor v. Conti

FILED FEB 2 1 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT C|erk. U.S. District& Bankrupf¢y FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Courtsforthe Dlstrict of columbia ) SPENCE TAYLOR, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v ) civil A¢tion N@. /¢}¢ -¢'ZJ’Y ) HON. JOY FLOWERS CONTI, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition. According to the petitioner, "[t]he CIA and its agents and Director [are] using a technology called voice to skull . . . to harass [the petitioner] and use him to gather intelligence without his consent." Pet. ll 3. According to the petitioner, this technology "allowed a microwave phone call directly to [the petitioner’s] brain" in such a way that the CIA can "collect intelligence from [the petitioner’s] surroundings wherever he went." Id.; see id. ll 4. When the petitioner complained to defendants Conti and Fisher, these respondents allegedly "ordered a psych evaluation" rather than assist him. Ia'. ll 5. In this action, the petitioner demands a writ of mandamus "enjoining these officers and agents . . . to cease and desist the conspiratorial actions and harassing communications." lot ll 6. Mandamus relief is proper only if "(l) 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." Councz`l of and for the Blind of Delaware Courzly Valley v. Regcm, 709 F.Zd 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden of showing that 993 [his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable. Gulfstream Aerospace C0rp. v. Mayacamas C0rp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Lzfe & Cas. C0. v. Hollarzd, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). This petitioner addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden. The petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE; ?')w»~? %// zc>/' United//S{ates District Judge