F;cu_=p UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE 1)1sTR1CT oF CoLUMBIA 955 2 7 2012 ) ‘=';;‘:.;~:t:~t€;$;;:::t:"“ MICHAEL IDROGO, ) Petitioner, § v. § Civil Action No. * PATRICK R. DONAHOE, et al., § Respondents. § ) MEMORAN])UM OPINION This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition. Petitioner, who alleges violations of his civil rights and of Texas law by respondents, demands "Order(s) from the Honorable Federal Court directing for F ederal Election to the Texas Secretary of State that ldrogo be properly included on the ballot as an independent candidate for U.S. House District 20 of Texas for the November 2012 General Election as; Michael ‘Commander’ Idrogo." Pet. at 2. 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 Blz`nd of Delaware Counlj) Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d l52l, 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."’ Guljfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 27l, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Lzfe & Cas. C0. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). Petitioner does not establish any of these elements, and, accordingly, the Court will deny the petition. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Idrogo v. Donahoe
Combined Opinion