Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-00055
01-12-2016
Robert Heard, Petitioner, v. The United States Attorney General et al., Respondents.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 1/13/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has submitted a Mandamus action and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
Petitioner seeks to compel an investigation of a list of wrongs, ranging from identify theft to murder. See Pet. at 2. Petitioner neither describes the alleged wrongdoing nor identifies the wrongdoers, but he states that the respondents were "alerted" about the behavior on several occasions in 2014 and 2015. Id. at 1.
The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). "It is well settled that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel discretionary acts." Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases). The United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. As a general rule applicable here, such decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Wightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2010) ("[A]n agency's decision whether to prosecute, investigate, or enforce has been recognized as purely discretionary and not subject to judicial review.") (citing Block v. SEC, 50 F.3d 1078, 1081-82 (D.C. Cir. 1995)) (other citation omitted).
A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/_________
United States District Judge Date: January 12, 2016