United States District Court, D. Maryland
L. Hollander United States District Judge.
O'Briant, the self-represented plaintiff, filed suit
under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, seeking a writ of
mandamus. He also submitted several exhibits
(collectively, the “Petition”). O'Briant
names the Baltimore City Office of Child Support
(“OCS”) as the sole Respondent. However, his
Petition suggests that he seeks to compel a favorable outcome
with regard to a lawsuit he filed against OCS in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City. ECF 1 at 2.
Petition is best explained in light of previous litigation.
See O'Briant v. Cox, et al., Civil Action No.
ELH-18-2099 (D. Md.). In that case, filed July 10, 2018,
O'Briant filed a civil rights action against Baltimore
City Circuit Court Judge Sylvester B. Cox; A. Brockington, a
Clerk of that court; and unknown "Pro Se Clinic
Attorneys" who assist self-represented litigants for
that court. In that Complaint (ECF 1), O'Briant requested
$1.2 million in damages based on alleged violations of his
rights under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment and
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Id. at 5. He complained that Brockington encouraged
him to seek advice from the Pro Se Attorney Clinic before
filing a complaint against OCS, which had "falsely
accused him of not making his court ordered payments."
Id. at 6. As a result of that accusation, plaintiff
claimed - as he does here - that his Maryland driver's
license was wrongly suspended as of December 2014.
Id. As the Complaint set forth no federal basis for
jurisdiction, the case was dismissed, without prejudice.
Id., ECF 3 (Memorandum of July 31, 2018); ECF 4
(Order of July 31, 2018).
noted in the July 31, 2018 Memorandum, O'Briant's
Complaint against OCS, filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, sought money damages for tortious injury due
to the improper suspension of driving privileges based on an
allegedly false claim that O'Briant had failed to pay
child support. That case was dismissed, without prejudice, by
Judge Cox on January 12, 2018, due in part to defects in
obtaining service of process on the defendant agency. See
O'Briant v. Baltimore City Office of Child Support,
Case No, 24-C-1700-3632 (Balto. City Cir. Ct.), docket entry
10; ECF 1 at 8. O'Briant's motion to alter or amend
that judgment was denied by Judge Cox on April 18, 2018.
Id. docket entry 11/3. O'Briant then sought en
banc review of the case and indigency status to proceed on
appeal (ECF 1 at 9, O'Briant v. Balto. City Office of
Child Support, Civil Action No. ELH-18-2750), which was
denied by Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill.
on April 30, 2018, O'Briant filed suit against Judge Cox.
That case was dismissed on May 17, 2018. See O'Briant
v. Cox, No. 24-C-1800-2698 (Balto. City Cir. Ct.). As
noted above, O'Briant then filed suit in this Court
against Judge Cox and other Circuit Court personnel. As
indicated, that case was dismissed, without prejudice.
28 U.S.C. § 1361 the federal district courts have
original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus
to compel an officer or employee of the United States or one
of its agencies to perform a duty owed to a petitioner. In
order to meet the requirements for mandamus relief, a
petitioner must show that he has the clear legal right to the
relief sought; that the respondent has a clear legal duty to
do the particular act requested; and that no other adequate
remedy is available. See In re First Fed. Savings and
Loan Ass'n of Durham, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.
1988); Asare v. Ferro, 999 F.Supp. 657, 659 (D. Md.
1998). The failure to show any of these prerequisites defeats
a district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1361. See National Association of Government Employees v.
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 830 F.Supp. 889, 898
(E.D. Va. 1993). Further, the issuance of a writ of mandamus
under § 1361 is an extraordinary remedy and is a matter
of judicial discretion. See Carter v. Seamans, 411
F.2d 767, 773 (5th Cir. 1969) (citations omitted).
assuming O'Briant could show these prerequisites, this
Court cannot compel mandamus relief with regard to a State
court decision. Therefore, the Petition is denied.
separate Order shall be entered in accordance with this
 The Court notes that O'Briant has
filed more than a dozen pro se lawsuits in this district in
the last 14 months, many in the past two weeks. Of the oldest
filings, six have been dismissed after initial review or
within weeks of filing, based on dispositive motions.
Although some of O'Briant's filings may be
meritorious, he should be aware that this Court must share
its time with numerous other litigants, and repeated
dismissals for lack of jurisdiction may result in the
imposition of sanctions to curb future repetitive or
 O'Briant did not provide a civil
filing fee or a motion and affidavit requesting leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. He also failed to provide proposed
summons, a civil cover sheet, and service copies of his
Petition. As the action shall not proceed, ...