Persons so aggrieved can obtain review of “[ajgency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. A court may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). However, the APA does not create an independent basis for jurisdiction. Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107, 97 S.Ct. 980, 985, 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977); Watson v. Blumenthal, 586 F.2d 925, 932 (2d Cir.1978). B. Mandamus The district courts have original jurisdiction to hear “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361; see also White v. Mathews, 559 F.2d 852, 856-57 (2d Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1458, 55
holding that the district court did not have jurisdiction and remanding the matter to state court holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional or knowing retaliation holding that a retaliatory discharge claim must be predicated on intentional and knowing retaliation holding that the district court properly predicated jurisdiction on  1361 holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial