Robinson v. Huerta et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order and in the court's Memorandum and Order dated September 24, 2013, this matter is dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ERIC ROBINSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL P. HUERTA,
)
Administrator, Federal Aviation
)
Administration, LACEY N. JONES, )
Manager, Special Investigations
)
Branch, Drug Abatement Division,
)
Federal Aviation Administration,
)
BRENT HART, Program Analyst,
)
Office of Audit and Evaluation,
)
Federal Aviation Administration,
)
MARC L. WARREN, (Acting) Chief )
Counsel, Federal Aviation
)
Administration, and A. LESTER
)
HAIZLIP, Regional Counsel, Central )
Region, Federal Aviation
)
Administration,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:13CV3130

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On September 24, 2013, the
court conducted an initial review of Petitioner Eric Robinson’s petition for a writ of
mandamus to compel the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to investigate
Duncan Aviation’s employee drug testing policies and the circumstances under which
Petitioner was terminated from Duncan Aviation. (Filing No. 6.) The court
determined that Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of mandamus because Petitioner
had not established that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires
or that his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. (Id. at CM/ECF
pp. 3-4.) On the court’s own motion, the court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file
an amended petition. (Id.)

Plaintiff filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus on October 23,
2013. (Filing No. 7.) Upon careful review of the amended petition, the court finds
that Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The writ of mandamus is an
extraordinary remedy, and therefore must be issued only in extraordinary
circumstances. “In order to insure that the writ will issue only in extraordinary
circumstances [the United States Supreme Court] has required that a party seeking
issuance have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires, and that he
satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and
indisputable.” Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980)
(citations and internal quotations omitted). See also Taylor v. Barnhart, 399 F.3d
891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005) (“The writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for
a plaintiff only if he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the
defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty.” (quoting Hatcher v. Heckler, 772
F.2d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 1985))).
Here, Petitioner alleges that he was fired from his employment with Duncan
Aviation because he tested positive for methamphetamine. (Filing No. 6 at CM/ECF
p. 2.) In this action, Petitioner does not challenge the termination of his employment.
Rather, he alleges that after he informed the Department of Transportation “of what
was going on,” the FAA did nothing more than “place a few phone calls” for its
investigation. (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 8-9.) In his amended petition, Petitioner asks that
the FAA be required to conduct a full and thorough investigation. However, it is
clear from Petitioner’s allegations and the attachments to his amended petition that
the FAA did investigate, albeit not in the manner Petitioner would have preferred.
Petitioner has not established that his right to the issuance of a writ is clear and
indisputable or that the FAA owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty. For these
reasons and the reasons discussed in the court’s Memorandum and Order dated
September 24, 2013, Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order and in the
court’s Memorandum and Order dated September 24, 2013, this matter is dismissed
without prejudice.
2.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this
Memorandum and Order.
DATED this 7th day of January, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

3