Gilberti v. United Nations

Background

Joseph D. Gilberti, who was detained in the Sarasota County Jail in Sarasota, Florida, filed the action without a lawyer. He sought mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the federal law allowing a district court to order a federal officer or agency to perform a duty owed to the person seeking relief.

Gilberti asked the respondents to verify two alleged underground sources of “spring water from earth’s core” that he described as endless and free of contaminants, including PFAS. He also requested inspections of a Florida project involving alleged spring water. The respondents named in the complaint included the United Nations, federal agencies and officials, the City of New York, the New York Port Authority, National Alliance Defense, the U.S. Congress, and the governors of New Jersey and Florida.

Legal standard

The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. To obtain it, a person must show that no other adequate way exists to obtain the requested relief, that the person’s right to the order is clear and indisputable, and that the order is appropriate. Mandamus jurisdiction is limited to compelling a nondiscretionary duty—that is, a duty the official or agency is required to perform rather than merely allowed to perform.

Because Gilberti was detained and sought relief from governmental entities and officials, the court screened the complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. That law requires dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Gilberti could not use mandamus to require the respondents—many of whom were not federal officials or agencies—to verify the alleged water sources. The respondents had no clear, nondiscretionary duty to investigate those sources or to report related information to Gilberti.

The court therefore denied Gilberti’s request for mandamus relief and dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined to give him permission to amend because the defects could not be corrected through an amended complaint.

Disposition

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF 14 and enter judgment. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.