28 U.S.C. § 1361
Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4,589
cases (1,448 in the last 5 years), 1963–2026 · leading case: RANDALL D. WOLCOTT, MD, PA v. Sebelius
RANDALL D. WOLCOTT, MD, PA v. Sebelius (2011)
“*763 In cases where 28 U.S.C. § 1361 jurisdiction was at issue, this Court has noted that courts should be mindful to “avoid tackling the merits under the ruse of assessing jurisdiction.”
Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia (2004)
“The District Court held, however, that FACA's substantive requirements could be enforced against the Vice President and other Government participants on the NEPDG under the Mandamus Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 , and against the agency defendants under the Administrative Procedure…”
Heckler v. Ringer (1984)
“§ 1331 (federal question), 28 U. S. C. § 1361 (mandamus against a federal official), and 42 U.”
Nine Iraqi Allies Under Serious Threat Because of Their Faithful Service to the United States v. Kerry (2016)
“§ 706 (1), and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . On September 1, 2015, the Government fried its Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim (“Gov’t’s Mot.”
Jeffrey Plaskett v. Christine Wormuth (2021)
“Regardless of whether plaintiff’s claim was viewed as one under the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , or under the APA, 5 U.”
Linda Cash v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security (2003)
“§ 405 (g) and 28 U.S.C. § 1361 . A magistrate judge recommended that Cash’s “action” be dismissed.”
Brown v. General Services Administration (1976)
“§§ 701-706 , and the Mandamus Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 , was held to be barred by sovereign immunity, since his claims for promotion would necessarily involve claims against the Treasury: "A suit against an officer of the United States is one against the United States itself `if…”
Califano v. Yamasaki (1979)
“The court found jurisdiction under the mandamus statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 , and granted relief to respondents.”
Simmat v. United States Bureau of Prisons (2005)
“§§ 1331 or 1361, that the case is properly denominated an action for relief in the nature of mandamus, authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , and that sovereign immunity is not a bar.”
Stafford v. Briggs (1980)
“Section 1 of the Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361 , provides that actions in the nature of mandamus can be brought in any district court of the United States.”
Alharbi v. Miller (2019)
“Count 1: Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 The INA prohibits aliens from entering or permanently residing in the United States without a visa.”
Marilyn A. Bobula v. United States Department of Justice (1992)
“Additionally, because the requirements for mandamus jurisdiction are not satisfied, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction under the mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361 (1988). As no other independent basis of subject matter jurisdiction was asserted, 1…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.