Bar-Levy v. Dogu

Background

Rabbi Jorge A. Bar-Levy filed an application described as an “Emergency Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus” under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He was representing himself and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The defendants were the United States Department of State, Laura Farnsworth Dogu, identified as the United States Ambassador to Honduras, and the United States Embassy in Honduras.

Bar-Levy alleged that members of the Honduran government had conducted an online disinformation campaign against him, including claims that he was a fugitive and convicted pedophile and was not Jewish or a United States citizen. He also alleged stalking, harassment, hacking, and threats against family members and members of his Jewish community. He asked the court to compel the United States to denounce Honduras, prevent alleged repression of his family, cancel the visas of Ricardo Soto Castro and Rita Labibi Abdulkhalek Burgos, and compel Honduras to stop its alleged illegal activities.

Legal standard

The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy used to compel a United States officer or agency to perform a clear, nondiscretionary duty—one that the law specifically requires the officer or agency to perform. A person seeking this relief must show that no other adequate remedy exists, that the right to the order is clear and indisputable, and that issuing the order is appropriate.

The court also discussed the Administrative Procedure Act, which can allow review when an agency unlawfully withholds or unreasonably delays action. That review is available only for a specific agency action the agency is required to take, not for matters committed to agency discretion. Because Bar-Levy was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court also had to screen his filing and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought relief barred by immunity. The court was required to read his self-represented filing liberally, but the filing still had to provide enough facts to state a plausible claim.

Court’s analysis and ruling

The court held that Bar-Levy’s allegations did not show that the defendants had failed to perform a clear and indisputable duty. The requests to cancel visas and to compel Honduras to stop its alleged activities therefore did not support relief under either the mandamus statute or the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court denied Bar-Levy’s request for mandamus relief. It declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.