---

JURISDICTION: FEDERAL

This template applies to United States District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeals governed by FRCP, FRAP, and Federal Rules of Evidence.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

---

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Petitioner {{Name}}, by {{pro se / counsel}}, respectfully alleges:

I. NATURE OF PROCEEDING

1. This is an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1361 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to perform a ministerial duty required by federal law: {{specific duty - e.g., "process FOIA request pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552" / "issue written findings pursuant to FRCP 52(a)"}}.

2. Despite multiple demands over {{X}} months, respondent has refused or failed to perform this statutory obligation.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to:

   • 28 U.S.C. §1361 (mandamus jurisdiction over federal officers)
   • {{28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question) / §1343 (civil rights) / other basis}}

4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) as respondent is an officer or employee of the United States and {{resides / has principal office / events occurred}} in this district.

III. PARTIES

5. Petitioner {{Name}} is {{description - party in underlying case, member of public with FOIA request, etc.}} and has a clear legal right to respondent's performance of the duty at issue.

6. Respondent {{Name}} is {{Title - e.g., "District Judge" / "Agency Administrator" / "United States Attorney"}}, an officer or employee of the United States, with offices at {{Address}}.

7. Respondent has a ministerial duty under {{Federal Statute/Rule}} to {{specific duty}}.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Underlying Proceedings

8. {{Brief description of underlying matter or request}}.

9. The underlying matter is {{Caption / FOIA Request No. / Administrative Matter No.}}, currently {{pending/concluded}} {{before this Court / in agency proceedings}}.

Actions Requiring Compliance

10. On {{date}}, {{event requiring respondent's action occurred - e.g., "petitioner submitted FOIA request to agency" / "bench trial concluded without written findings"}}.

11. On {{date}}, {{additional event}}.

[Continue chronologically with all relevant events]

Demands for Compliance

15. On {{date}}, petitioner served respondent with notice of non-compliance demanding compliance with {{statute/rule}} (Exhibit A).

16. Respondent did not respond or comply within the {{X}} business days requested.

17. On {{date}}, petitioner {{filed motion / sent follow-up demand / contacted agency}} (Exhibit B).

18. Respondent again failed to comply.

19. On {{date}}, petitioner {{exhausted administrative remedies / filed motion / other action}} (Exhibit C).

20. Respondent {{denied without explanation / ignored / other response}}.

Current Status

21. As of {{date}}, respondent has still not performed the required duty.

22. Petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies.

V. LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I: MANDAMUS IS THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY

23. Mandamus is available to compel a federal officer to perform a ministerial duty. Heckler v. Roe, 465 U.S. 312, 314 (1984); In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

24. To obtain mandamus, petitioner must demonstrate: (1) a clear right to the relief sought; (2) respondent's duty to act is ministerial and plainly defined; and (3) no other adequate remedy exists. Heckler, 465 U.S. at 314.

25. All three elements are satisfied here.

POINT II: RESPONDENT'S DUTY IS MINISTERIAL

26. {{Statute/Rule}} requires respondent to {{duty}}. [Quote relevant statutory language.]

27. This duty is ministerial because it is "so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt and equivalent to a positive command." ICC v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 287 U.S. 178, 204 (1932).

28. The statute uses mandatory language: "shall {{action}}." This leaves no discretion.

29. [Analysis showing no discretion involved - duty is purely administrative/ministerial, not requiring judgment or policy determination.]

30. Courts have uniformly held that {{type of duty}} is ministerial. [Supporting cases].

POINT III: PETITIONER HAS CLEAR RIGHT TO RELIEF

31. Petitioner has a clear statutory right under {{Statute/Rule}} to respondent's performance of this duty.

32. {{Statute/Rule}} creates an enforceable obligation running to {{petitioner's status - e.g., "FOIA requesters" / "parties in litigation" / "administrative applicants"}}.

33. [Explanation of why petitioner specifically has standing and right to this relief.]

POINT IV: NO ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY

34. Petitioner has exhausted all alternative remedies, including:

    • Procedural enclosures served {{dates}} (Exhibits A-B)
    • {{Administrative appeal / Motion / Agency contact}} filed {{date}} (Exhibit C)
    • {{Additional efforts}}

35. [Explain why other remedies are inadequate or unavailable - e.g., "APA review is unavailable because no final agency action exists" / "No other judicial remedy exists for ministerial duty"]

36. Absent mandamus relief, petitioner has no remedy for respondent's continued non-compliance.

POINT V: IRREPARABLE HARM

37. Respondent's failure to perform causes petitioner irreparable harm:

    • {{Harm 1 - e.g., "Prevents access to agency records required for pending litigation"}}
    • {{Harm 2 - e.g., "Violates due process rights to written findings"}}
    • {{Harm 3 - e.g., "Indefinitely delays resolution of administrative matter"}}

38. These harms cannot be remedied by money damages and are ongoing.

VI. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

39. Petitioner has made the following good-faith efforts to obtain compliance:

Date	Action	Result
{{Date}}	Procedural enclosure served	No response
{{Date}}	{{Administrative appeal/Motion}}	Denied/Ignored
{{Date}}	{{Follow-up demand}}	No action

40. Petitioner has exhausted all reasonable alternatives. Mandamus is the only remaining remedy.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Issue an order to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue;

B. After hearing, issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent to {{specific action - e.g., "respond to FOIA Request No. {{X}} within thirty (30) days" / "issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to FRCP 52(a)"}};

C. Award costs and attorney's fees pursuant to {{28 U.S.C. §2412 / 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(E) / other authority}};

D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: {{Date}}

Respectfully submitted,

---

{{Your Signature}} {{Your Name}} {{Pro Se / Attorney for Petitioner}} {{Address}} {{Phone}} {{Email}}

---

VERIFICATION

I, {{Petitioner Name}}, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Executed on {{Date}}.

---

{{Signature}} {{Name}}

---

EXHIBITS

Exhibit A: Notice of Non-Compliance dated {{date}} Exhibit B: {{Administrative Appeal/Motion/Demand}} filed {{date}} Exhibit C: {{Agency Denial/Court Order/Correspondence}} Exhibit D: {{Additional documentation}}

---

Authorities Cited:

• 28 U.S.C. §1361 (mandamus jurisdiction)
• 28 U.S.C. §1391(e) (venue)
• {{Specific duty statute - e.g., 5 U.S.C. §552 (FOIA), FRCP 52(a), etc.}}
• Heckler v. Roe, 465 U.S. 312 (1984)
• In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
• ICC v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 287 U.S. 178 (1932)
• {{Additional authorities as applicable}}

---

Service: This Verified Petition shall be served on respondent pursuant to FRCP 4 and applicable local rules.