Torres Puello v. Pompeo

Background

Jorge Anibal Torres Puello, appearing without a lawyer, filed an emergency petition seeking mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He alleged that Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and the U.S. Department of State had curtailed his ability to vote in the Dominican Republic’s July 5, 2020 national election.

Torres Puello alleged that, on March 26, 2020, Pompeo sent a diplomatic note to foreign governments about foreign nationals voting in the United States in foreign elections. The note asked embassies to respect U.S. public-order and COVID-19 policies and strongly recommended considering voting by mail or another method that would not require voters to appear physically at polling places. Torres Puello claimed the note was unclear, interfered with his constitutional right to vote in the Dominican Republic election, and gave the Dominican Republic an opportunity to disenfranchise voters living in the United States.

He asked the court to require Pompeo to clarify the note, protect his right to vote in the United States without government interference, and notify the Dominican Republic that the voting rights of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are protected by the U.S. Constitution. He also named the Dominican Republic and the Junta Central Electoral, the Dominican Republic’s election board, as third parties. The opinion states that he did not submit declarations, other evidence, or a proposed order supporting his request for emergency injunctive relief.

Legal standard

Because Torres Puello had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or was filed without subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s filing liberally and interpret it to raise the strongest claims suggested by the allegations.

To obtain mandamus relief, a petitioner must show that no other adequate means exist to obtain the requested relief, that the right to relief is clear and indisputable, and that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Torres Puello had not alleged facts showing that Pompeo owed him a duty that Pompeo failed to perform. He also had not shown that no other means existed to obtain the ability to vote in the Dominican Republic election or that his requested relief was clear and indisputable.

The court reasoned that, even assuming Pompeo owed the asserted duty, requiring Pompeo to clarify the note would not affect Torres Puello’s ability to vote because the Dominican Republic determines how its elections are conducted for Dominican nationals living in the United States. The court therefore concluded that Torres Puello could not obtain the requested relief through a mandamus action.

Disposition

Judge Halpern dismissed the emergency motion for mandamus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, with 30 days’ leave to replead. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The order is dated May 15, 2020. The supplied case metadata identifies May 18, 2020 as the filing date.