context: .To die extent that the claims could be construed as a mandamus action against HUD, they are dismissed because the Grand Manor Regulatory Agreement vests HUD with discretion, as opposed to non-discretionary ministerial duties required to support a mandamus action.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 607 F.2d 506, 512-13
citation_a.parenthetical: dismissing mandamus action by tenants "challenging the pervasive failure of HUD to enforce its own regulations" because "[ojnly when the duty is clear and unmistakable is the extraordinary remedy of mandamus appropriate."
citation_a.sentence: See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ("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.”); Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984) ("The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff ... only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty."); Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1182 (2d Cir.1978); see also Falzarano v. United States, 607 F.2d 506, 512-13 (1st Cir.1979) (dismissing mandamus action by tenants "challenging the pervasive failure of HUD to enforce its own regulations” because "[ojnly when the duty is clear and unmistakable is the extraordinary remedy of mandamus appropriate.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 466 U.S. 602, 616
citation_b.parenthetical: "The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. SS 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff ... only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty."
citation_b.sentence: See 28 U.S.C. § 1361 ("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.”); Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616, 104 S.Ct. 2013, 80 L.Ed.2d 622 (1984) ("The common-law writ of mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff ... only if the defendant owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty."); Hsieh v. Kiley, 569 F.2d 1179, 1182 (2d Cir.1978); see also Falzarano v. United States, 607 F.2d 506, 512-13 (1st Cir.1979) (dismissing mandamus action by tenants "challenging the pervasive failure of HUD to enforce its own regulations” because "[ojnly when the duty is clear and unmistakable is the extraordinary remedy of mandamus appropriate.”).