TODD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JASON R. TODD, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-2575 (UNA)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )
OF JUSTICE, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s second motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4 at 5-18), and complaint (ECF No. 1), as amended (ECF No. 4 at 20-25,
“Am. Compl.”). The Court will grant plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss
the complaint and this civil action.
Plaintiff is a disabled veteran, Am. Compl. ¶ 6, who has submitted assorted documents,
including “ADA trauma filings,” “VA medical records” and “civil-rights deprivation evidence,”
id. ¶ 9, to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, see id. According to plaintiff, “[t]hese filings trigger[]
mandatory regulatory duties under [Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act], including acknowledgment, review, investigation, and
processing,” id. Defendants allegedly fail to perform these duties, see id. ¶¶ 11-12, and thus
violate the Administrative Procedure Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act, see id. ¶¶ 14-16, as well as the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, id. ¶ 18. Plaintiff demands a declaratory judgment and “[a]n order compelling
Defendants to perform their mandatory duties.” Id. at 25.
Case 1:25-cv-02575-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
“A writ of mandamus is a ‘drastic and extraordinary’ remedy.” Brady v. Garland, No. 23-
cv-00212 (APM), 2023 WL 7213804, at *2 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2023) (quoting Cheney v. U.S.
District Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)), aff’d, No. 23-5246, 2024 WL 1693618 (D.C. Cir. Apr.
11, 2024); see Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984) (“The common-law writ of
mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only
if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear
nondiscretionary duty.”). “To establish entitlement to mandamus relief, the plaintiff must
demonstrate 1) a clear and indisputable right to the particular relief sought against the federal
official, 2) that the federal official is violating a clear duty to act, and 3) that the plaintiff has no
adequate alternate remedy.” Illinois v. Ferriero, 60 F.4th 704, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citation
omitted). “These three threshold requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a court must
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell, 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C.
Cir. 2016).
Here, plaintiff neither demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the relief he demands
nor defendants’ clear duty to act. “The decision whether and when to investigate a particular
matter is quintessentially discretionary,” Gage v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-cv-0283, 2022
WL 602451, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2022); see Ballance v. Peeples, No. 10-cv-0864, 2010 WL
3069201, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2010) (“Petitioner cannot compel a criminal investigation by any
law enforcement agency by means of a writ of mandamus.”), and the Court cannot compel a
discretionary agency action.
An Order will separately issue.
DATE: January 2, 2026 /s/
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02575-UNA Document 5 Filed 01/02/26 Page 2 of 2