## Facts

- John Lee Redpath, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Morelia, Mexico on January 22, 1975, on charges related to passing bad checks.
- Mexican authorities notified the U.S. Consulate, and a U.S. consular officer visited Redpath the next day.
- Redpath initially lacked counsel; a Mexican court appointed a public defender who represented him at trial.
- Redpath was convicted in Mexico and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; his sentence was later reduced, with anticipated release based on good behavior.
- Redpath alleged Mexican officials tortured him and alleged U.S. officials negligently failed to provide assistance and to protect his constitutional and statutory rights, including by not securing his release.
- The State Department investigated allegations of mistreatment; a State Department official attested that Redpath’s torture allegations were found unsubstantiated.
- Materials describing State Department consular procedures for assisting imprisoned U.S. nationals were submitted; the court found the procedures appeared to have been followed where applicable.
- Redpath’s pleadings asserted torture in general terms without specific factual instances.

## Issues

1. Whether 22 U.S.C. § 1732 creates a judicially enforceable duty that can be compelled by mandamus to obtain the release of a U.S. citizen imprisoned by a foreign government.
2. Whether mandamus may control executive-branch decisions concerning diplomacy and consular assistance for citizens detained abroad when the challenged acts are discretionary.
3. Whether Redpath’s allegations, as pleaded, stated a sufficient basis for judicial relief or appointment of counsel.

## Decision

- The court granted the government’s motion to dismiss and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus.
- The court held that § 1732 is addressed to the President and commits the response to foreign detention of U.S. citizens to executive discretion rather than creating an enforceable duty owed to an individual.
- The court concluded that the relief sought concerned discretionary foreign-affairs functions, not a clear, ministerial duty required for mandamus.
- The court found the record showed U.S. officials took consular steps consistent with internal procedures and that Redpath’s torture allegations were unsupported and non-specific.
- The court denied Redpath’s request for appointment of counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only to compel a clear, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty; it cannot be used to direct or control discretionary executive judgments.
- Statutory language directing the President to use means “as he may think necessary and proper” indicates discretion and is generally incompatible with mandamus enforcement.
- Decisions concerning diplomacy and consular protection for U.S. citizens abroad are ordinarily committed to the political branches and are not subject to judicial compulsion absent a specific, mandatory legal duty.
- Conclusory allegations, particularly when contradicted by record evidence of governmental action and investigation, do not support mandamus relief.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed a U.S. citizen’s mandamus petition seeking to compel diplomatic and consular action to secure his release from a Mexican prison, holding that § 1732 confers discretionary authority in foreign affairs and does not create a ministerial, judicially enforceable duty.


Redpath v. Kissinger, 415 F. Supp. 566 (W.D. Tex. 1976)