JENSON v. BEDFORD et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
TRACY A. JENSON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 26-1304 (UNA)
)
BRYAN BEDFORD, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on an application from Tracy Jensen to proceed in forma
pauperis and a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court grants the application to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismisses the petition, which appears to be yet another attempt to collect pay
allegedly owed to the Petitioner from prior employment as an air traffic controller. Although the
Petitioner claims that this action “is not the same issue” as other lawsuits, Pet. at 1, the petition
does not explain how these claims differ from those raised and rejected in prior actions. See
Brodowy v. United States, 482 F.3d 1370, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (concluding that plaintiffs,
including Jenson, “were not entitled to the benefits of the two-step increase in pay received by
controllers who transferred at a time when the [General Schedule] system was in effect”); Jenson
v. Huerta, 828 F. Supp. 2d 174, 181 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting in dismissing on res judicata grounds
that Brodowy and Jenson’s consolidated cases “clearly arise out of the same pay dispute” and that
the “Federal Circuit’s decision was final and made on the merits”); see also Jenson v. Mellody, No.
2:10-cv-0493, 2011 WL 3679142, at *1 (D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2011) (listing “twelve other actions
relating to recovery of the same lost wages”).
Case 1:26-cv-01304-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Mandamus relief is available only if “(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 plaintiff.”
Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir.
1983) (en banc). Here, the Petitioner cannot demonstrate a clear right to relief, given that the matter
has been resolved on the merits elsewhere. See Jenson v. Whitaker, No. 25-cv-0051, 2025 WL
1167942, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2025) (dismissing mandamus petition where “the facts forming
the basis of this action have been ‘conclusively establish[ed] against [Petitioner]’”) (quoting
Jenson v. Trottenberg, No. 23-cv-2976, 2024 WL 379820, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2024)); Jenson v.
FAA, No. 12-cv-0950, 2012 WL 2308156, at *1 (D.D.C. June 11, 2012) (dismissing “repetitive
action with prejudice”).
An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: June 8, 2026 SPARKLE L. SOOKNANAN
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-01304-UNA Document 3 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 2