Case 1:12-cv-00480-UNA Document 5 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 2
`Case 1:l2—cv—O0480—UNA Document 5 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 2
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`FILED
`
`MAY ‘ 7 2012
`Clerk, US Dist .
`Courts for the Digirifi Eta
`Ia
`
`Civil Action No. 12-0480
`
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`VIKRAM BUDDHI,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v,
`
`UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE
`AGENCY, et al. ,
`
`Respondents.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`This matter is before the Court on the petitioner’s application to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application
`
`and dismiss the petition.
`
`Between December 2005 and December 2009, “officers from United States Secret
`
`Service agency and the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana investigated
`
`and prosecuted the criminal case against the [petitioner] in United States v. Vikram Buddhi, No.
`
`2:06 CR 63 (N .D. Indiana), for allegedly ‘making threats against’ G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney,
`
`Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld.” Compl. 1] 7. The petitioner “was convicted
`
`and sentenced on December 1 1, 2009,” and his “prison sentence was completed on May 06,
`
`2011.” Id. 1i 8. According to the petitioner, under 42 U.S.C. § 10607, the respondents were
`
`responsible for identifying the victims of the crimes he committed, and for determining that these
`
`victims actually “suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm as a result of a crime.”
`
`Id. 11 18 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § l0607(e)(2)).
`
`

`
`Case 1:12-cv-00480-UNA Document 5 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 2
`Case 1:l2—cv—O0480—UNA Document 5 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 2
`
`The petitioner claims that the respondents “absolutely refused to perform [their] duty to assess
`
`harms, and arbitrarily and capriciously identified G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Laura Bush, Lynne
`
`Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld as crime victims.” Id 1] 19. The petitioner demands a writ of
`
`mandamus directing the respondents to perform this “ministerial duty .
`
`.
`
`. owed to [him] as a
`
`direct and proximate cause of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d)(2)(B)’s requirement that
`
`a presentence report must contain ‘information that assesses any financial, social, psychological,
`
`and medical impact on any victim.” Id. 1] 21.
`
`Mandamus relief is proper only if “(1) the plaintiff has a clear right to relief; (2) the
`
`defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to
`
`plaintiff.” Council ofandfor the Blind ofDelaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521,
`
`1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the “burden of showing that
`
`77?
`[his] right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable. Gufltream Aerospace Corp. v.
`
`Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346
`
`U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). Although the respondents, “[a]t the earliest opportunity after the
`
`detection of a crime .
`
`.
`
`. shall
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. identify the victim or victims of a crime,” 42 U.S.C. §
`
`10607(b)(1), they are “not required to do anything .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`in the absence of an ongoing criminal
`
`investigation.” Saum v. Widnall, 912 F. Supp. 1384, 1396 (D. Colo. 1996). The petitioner
`
`already has been convicted; his presentence investigation report already has been submitted; he
`
`already has served his entire prison sentence. Because the petitioner cannot demonstrate a clear
`
`an indisputable right to mandamus relief, his petition must be denied. An Order accompanies
`
`this Memorandum Opinion.
`
`DATE: 373, olb/.9.
`
`%;,;)
`
`-
`
`United States Dis ict Judge ‘