Joseph v. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Order to Show Cause Hearing set for 4/11/2014 09:00 AM. Show Cause Response due by 4/4/2014.. Signed by Judge Ronald M Whyte on March 6 2014. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12

RHAWN JOSEPH, Ph. D.,
Petitioner,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-00385
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
ADMINISTRATION (NASA), and
CHARLES F. BOLDEN, Chief Administrator

[Re Docket No. 1]

Respondents.

17
18
19

On January 27, 2014 petitioner Rhawn Joseph, Ph. D. (“Joseph”), filed a petition for writ of

20

mandamus to compel the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) to “closely

21

photograph and thoroughly scientifically examine and investigate a putative biological organism”

22

on the planet Mars identified by Joseph. Dkt. No. 1 (Petition), ¶ 1. Joseph identified the specimen

23

through publically released photographs from the NASA Mars rover Opportunity. Id. ¶ 2. The court

24

orders Joseph to show cause why his petition should be not dismissed for failure to state a claim and

25

lack of standing. 1

26
27
1

28

These are only two of several likely problems with plaintiff’s petition. The sovereign immunity
doctrine, the political question doctrine, the court’s power to order the specific relief requested, and
others are not addressed here.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-1-

A. Does the petition state a claim for relief?

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 81(b) abolished the writ of mandamus in district court

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

practice. However, “[r]elief previously available through [a writ of mandamus] may be obtained by
appropriate action or motion under these rules.” Id. The court will treat Joseph’s petition as an
action for injunctive relief in the nature of mandamus. See Stehney v. Perry, 907 F. Supp. 806, 819
n. 2 (D.N.J. 1995). “[R]elief in the nature of mandamus is available only to compel performance of
a duty that is essentially ministerial” and is not available to compel discretionary acts of officers.
Wright & Miller, 12 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 3134 (2d ed.); United States v. Walker, 409 F.2d 477,
481 (9th Cir. 1969) (“Mandamus is proper only to command an official to perform a ministerial
act.”).
Here, Joseph requests that the court order NASA to “take 100 high resolution close-up infocus photos” of the specimen he has identified; “take a minimum of 24 microscopic in-focus
images” of the specimen; supply the images to the public; allow Joseph to “act as an observer at the
rover command facility” and “appoint two NASA astrobiologists to the rover team”; credit Joseph
with discovering the organism and allow him to appear as first author on the first six articles relating
to the discovery. Petition at ¶¶ 26-31. These are clearly not ministerial duties of NASA. Walker, 409
F.2d at 481 (“An act is ministerial only if it is a positive command and so plainly prescribed as to be
free from doubt.”). Because Joseph has not requested relief in the nature of mandamus, and his
petition does not state any cause of action other than mandamus, the court orders Joseph to show
cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
B. Does Joseph have standing to bring his complaint?
“The doctrine of standing ... has both constitutional and prudential components.” Evident
Corp. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., 399 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2005). Under Article III of the
Constitution, the constitutional component of standing requires the following elements: (1) the
plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and the
conduct complained of; and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). To show that plaintiff has suffered an
injury in fact, he must allege a concrete and personalized injury. Valley Forge Christian College v
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-2-

1

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 482 (1982). Courts

2

refrain “from adjudicating abstract questions of wide public significance which amount to

3

generalized grievances, pervasively shared and most appropriately addressed in the representative

4

branches.” Id. at 475 (internal quotations, citation omitted).

5

Joseph’s petition raises only a generalized grievance shared with many citizens. Joseph

6

alleges that he is an astrobiologist and has published many papers in the field. Petition at ¶¶ 15-22.

7

However, “standing is not measured by the intensity of the litigant’s interest or the fervor of his

8

advocacy.” Valley Forge, 454 U.S. at 486. The only injury Joseph alleges is NASA’s failure to

9

investigate a specimen depicted in images taken during a Mars rover mission. This is not an injury

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

particular to Joseph.

11

Joseph also suggests that he has standing because he is a taxpayer. Petition at ¶23.

12

Generally, taxpayer standing is only allowed “in a narrow range of Establishment Clause cases”

13

because the Establishment Clause “is a specific limitation on exercise of the power to tax and

14

spend.” Wright & Miller, 13B Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3531.10.1 (3d ed.). In addition to not

15

alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause, Joseph does not appear to have alleged a violation

16

of any specific federal law. See Petition at ¶ 25 (alleging NASA violated “a public, scientific, and

17

statutory duty.”).

18
19

Accordingly, it is ordered that Joseph show cause why his case should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim and/or for lack of standing. Joseph will file a response by April 4, 2014.

20
21
22

Dated: March 6, 2014

_________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Case No. 14-CV-00385-RMW
LM

-3-