PEREZ v. GARLAND et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SHANIQUE PEREZ, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-3916 (UNA)
)
MERRICK GARLAND, et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Shanique Roseanne Nicole Perez’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), petition for a writ of mandamus (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”),
and motion to correct the docket (ECF No. 3). The Court will grant petitioner leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, deny the petition, and deny the motion to correct the docket.
Petitioner claims she was a minor enrolled in District of Columbia Public Charter
Schools when, over several years, a teacher sexually abused her. See Pet. at 1. According to
petitioner, the crimes committed against her were federal crimes, see id. at 2–3, yet the teacher
was prosecuted in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia rather than the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, see id. at 3, 5. This course of action allegedly
resulted in “a diluted plea, limited sentencing exposure, and loss of federal evidentiary control,”
and “[t]he diversion of this matter into local criminal channels, coupled with the refusal of
federal authorities to exercise oversight, . . . shield[ed] federally funded educational institutions
from Title IX accountability.” Id. at 5–6. Petitioner brought this action against the former
Attorney General for the United States, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, and among other relief, petitioner demands a
Case 1:25-cv-03916-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
writ of mandamus compelling respondents “to re-open and pursue federal investigation and
prosecution of trafficking and related offenses arising from the [teacher’s] conduct[.]” Id. at 12.
“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, petitioner neither demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the relief she
demands nor respondents’ 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 “[i]t is
well settled that the question of whether and when prosecution is to be instituted is within the
discretion of the Attorney General. Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of this
Case 1:25-cv-03916-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
discretion,” Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F. 2d. 234, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (citations omitted); see
Schlesinger v. Mukasey, No. 08-cv-1668, 2009 WL 530350, at *1 (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 2009)
(dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction petition seeking to compel United States
Attorney General and United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York to “investigate
and prosecute offenses allegedly committed by individuals involved in [petitioner’s] criminal
prosecution).
An Order accompanying this Memorandum Opinion will separately issue.
DATE: December 5, 2025 /s/
ANA C. REYES
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-03916-UNA Document 6 Filed 12/05/25 Page 3 of 3