Rattler v. Department of Health and Human Services

Civil Action No. 2013-0786 | D.D.C. | May 30, 2013

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF COLUMBIA MAY 3 0 2013 C|erk, U.S. District and Clyde Lacy Rattler, ) Bankruptcy courts ) Petitioner, ) ) . ) Civil Action No. _,. v ) L?> 7 XQ) Department of Health and Human Services,) ) Respondent. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’ s pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperis The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(e)(Z)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). Plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident who alleges that he applied for supplemental security income with the Department of Health and Human Services and that the application was denied. Compl. at l-Z. He does not state when this occurred but in earlier complaints since dismissed as frivolous, plaintiff stated that he applied for benefits "on or about 1983." Rattler v. Dep ’t ofHealth and Human Servs., No. 13-0327, slip op. at 1 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2013); see also Rattler v. Sec ’y ofDep ’t ofHealth ana' Human Servs., No. 10-1484, slip op. at l (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 2010), a]j‘”’d, 405 Fed. Appx. 504 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 8, 2010). As in the dismissed cases, plaintiff seeks here a writ of mandamus. Compl. at 2. Since, among other reasons, the Social Security Act provides an adequate remedy for challenging the denial of social security benefits, see 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), plaintiff is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521" date_filed="1983-06-10" court="D.C. Cir." case_name="Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley, Inc. v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury">709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. l983) (en banc); Rattler v. Dep ’t of Health and Human Servs., No. 13-0094, slip op. (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 201 3) (concluding that petitioner "utterly fails to meet his burden" for mandamus r_eliet). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 5\_' United Stags District Judge Date: May Z\ , 2013