Automated Summary
Key Facts
Petitioner Askia Sankofa Ashanti filed a petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, alleging state and federal sex offender registries contain incorrect information about him, including an incorrect release date for his rape conviction and six aliases never used by him. Petitioner claimed these errors violated his equal protection and due process rights under the federal Constitution. The magistrate judge found the petition should be dismissed because: (1) the release date was already corrected by state authorities, mooting that claim; (2) the defamation/reputation claim requires showing tangible loss to interests, which petitioner did not allege; and (3) there is no evidence of intentional discrimination without rational basis for an equal protection claim. The magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition without leave to amend.
Issues
- The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel state and federal authorities to correct incorrect information on sex offender registries. The court must determine whether § 1651 is an appropriate vehicle for these claims, as mandamus is an extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes requiring the absence of other means to attain relief and a clear and undisputable right to the writ.
- Alternative means of attaining relief exist: the release date was already corrected by state authorities, petitioner could communicate directly with state officials to correct alias listings, and petitioner could file a traditional state or federal civil lawsuit. The existence of these alternatives moots the claim regarding the release date.
- The court lacks jurisdiction under § 1651 to issue the writ to state officials as requested by petitioner. The federal sex offender registry website aggregates and refers to state registry information, meaning the parties responsible for the federal site are state actors. Federal courts cannot issue writs of mandamus to compel state officials to correct registry information.
- The facts alleged do not present a viable equal protection claim. To state a class of one equal protection claim, plaintiff must allege that similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without rational basis. Petitioner does not indicate that other offenders having no aliases listed resulted from intentional discrimination without rational basis.
- Even accepting petitioner's allegations as true, the claims do not present a clear and undisputable right to the order sought. Under Paul v. Davis, defamation or injury to reputation alone does not give rise to a due process claim—a litigant must also allege tangible loss to their interests, which petitioner has not done.
Holdings
The petitioner's petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 is dismissed without leave to amend, but without prejudice to future suits seeking the same relief. The petitioner's pending motions for summary judgment and default judgment are denied.
Remedies
The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing the petitioner to proceed without prepaying costs of the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), as the petitioner demonstrated inability to afford the costs of the action.
Legal Principles
- Correction of an error on a registry provides all process required by the Constitution. When state authorities have already corrected the date of release, petitioner's claim regarding that issue becomes moot.
- To state an equal protection claim not based on membership in protected classes, plaintiff must allege similarly situated individuals were intentionally treated differently without rational basis for the difference in treatment. These are called 'class of one' equal protection claims.
- Defamation or injury to reputation alone does not give rise to a due process claim; a litigant must also allege a tangible loss to their interests. This principle was established in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 712 (1976).
- Writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring (1) absence of any other means to attain relief, and (2) a clear and undisputable right to the issuance of the writ. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, federal courts may issue writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their jurisdiction.
Precedent Name
- Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
- Hernandez v. Tanninen
- Thompson v. Circuit Ct. of Prince George's Cy.
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
- Martinez v. Ylst
- Robinson v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms
- Turner v. Duncan
- Paul v. Davis
- City of Cleburne
- Givens v. Grau
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep't of Agriculture
- Spady v. Hudson
Cited Statute
- In Forma Pauperis
- Writs of Mandamus
- Magistrate Judge Authority
Judge Name
Edmund F. Brennan
Passage Text
- Second, petitioner's claims, accepting his allegations as true, do not present a clear and undisputable right to the order he seeks. Even if officials were to refuse to correct the listing of aliases, plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under the allegations presented, because the United States Supreme Court has held that defamation or injury to reputation alone does not give rise to a due process claim.
- As an initial matter, § 1651 is not an appropriate vehicle for petitioner's claims, as the injunction requested by petitioner would not aid this or any other federal court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. In addition, the court lacks jurisdiction under § 1651 to issue the writ to state officials, as requested by petitioner.
- First, an attachment to petition shows that, in response to petitioner's request, the web registries have already corrected the date of release for petitioner's rape conviction. The court also takes judicial notice of the Megan's Law and Dru Sjodin websites, which both show the correct release date. This fact moots petitioner's claim regarding the release date and shows that there is at least one alternative to writ of mandamus.