Michael John Bui v. U.S. Attorney's Office

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Pasco M. Bowman and Diana E. Murphy (UNPUBLISHED) [4395273] [15-3640]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 15-3640
___________________________
Michael John Bui
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
U.S. Attorney’s Office
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
____________
Submitted: May 2, 2016
Filed: May 4, 2016
[Unpublished]
____________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 15-3640

Page: 1

Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Entry ID: 4395273

Michael Bui appeals after the District Court1 dismissed his petition for a writ
of mandamus. Upon careful de novo review, see Hart v. United States, 630 F.3d
1085, 1088 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing de novo the dismissal of a complaint for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity), we conclude that
dismissal was proper, see Borntrager v. Stevas, 772 F.2d 419, 420 (8th Cir.)
(“[M]andamus may issue against an officer of the United States only when the
plaintiff has a clear right to relief, the defendant has a clear duty to perform the act
in question, and the plaintiff has no adequate alternative remedy.”), cert. denied, 474
U.S. 1008 (1985); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (noting that
a pleading “must contain sufficient factual matter” to state a claim that is plausible
on its face in order to avoid dismissal); In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888, 893–94 (8th
Cir.) (en banc) (explaining the standards for granting a petition for writ of
mandamus), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1790 (2014). Accordingly, we affirm.
______________________________

1

The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief Judge, United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3640

Page: 2

Date Filed: 05/04/2016 Entry ID: 4395273