Case Information
*1 Case 1:25-cv-01620-UNA Document 5 Filed 06/18/25 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________
)
MARK INGRAHAM, )
)
Petitioner, )
) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-1620 (UNA) )
OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE )
CURRENCY OF THE UNITED STATES )
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, )
)
Respondent. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Mark Ingraham’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) and his pro se “Petition for a Writ of Mandate,” construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus (ECF No. 1, “Pet.”). The Court GRANTS the application and, for the reasons discussed below, DENIES the petition.
Petitioner alleges there exists a “police report attached to a case opened by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Customer Assistance Group OCC Ombudsman,” Pet. at 1, to which “a police report regarding ‘cartel activity’ was attached,” id . He as made inquiries yet “did not receive adequate details” about the matter. Id . Petitioner demands “a writ of mandate [sic] ordering the OCC to provide the police reports attached to [that] case . . . and any related cases.” Id .
A writ of mandamus “compel[s] an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “[M]andamus is
1
Case 1:25-cv-01620-UNA Document 5 Filed 06/18/25 Page 2 of 2 ‘drastic’; it is available only in ‘extraordinary situations.’” In re Cheney , 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted). “To establish entitlement to mandamus relief, the plaintiff must demonstrate 1) a clear and indisputable right to the particular relief sought against the federal official, 2) that the federal official is violating a clear duty to act, and 3) that the plaintiff has no adequate alternate remedy.” Illinois v. Ferriero , 60 F.4th 704, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (citation omitted); see Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan , 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). “These three threshold requirements are jurisdictional; unless all are met, a court must dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.” Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Burwell , 812 F.3d 183, 189 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Petitioner neither establishes an entitlement to the report he demands, nor OCC’s or an OCC official’s duty to produce it. Thus, Petitioner fails to demonstrate he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
AMIT P. MEHTA United States District Judge DATE: June 18, 2025
2