Appellant’s complaint against the President sought injunc-tive and declaratory relief, seemingly to compel the enforcement of various laws. Her complaint cited numerous statutes, including the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. But the remedy of mandamus is available 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.” Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781, 784 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quotations and citations omitted). Appellant has not shown a “clear and indisputable right” to mandamus relief. See Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35
holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances holding that the relevant inquiry is not whether the court has discretion to facilitate notice but whether this is an appropriate case in which to exercise discretion holding that federal executive officials in general are not privileged with absolute immunity recognizing discretion and electing to decide issue holding the executive branch has absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct an investigation or prosecute a case