Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-01564
07-29-2016
ROBERT HEARD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 8/2/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil (F Deck) MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se "Formal Complaint," which is construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the petition.
The petitioner alleges that, by "OMISSIONS AND CO-MMISSIONS" of her duties, the respondent "VIOLATED [HIS] CIVIL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND THEREBY CAUSED [HIM] TO BE CRIMINALLY ABUSED BY PEOPLE LIKE LARRY AND LOLITA AIKEN AND THE MEXICAN CARTEL AT THE SECOND FLOOR LAW LIBRARY AT THE HALL COUNTY COURTHOUSE." Pet. at 1 (emphasis in original). In order "TO PLACE THESE PEOPLE BEHIND BARS," the petitioner appears to ask that the Attorney General issue warrants. Id.
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 of and for the Blind of Delaware 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 [his] right to issuance of the writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953)). This petitioner addresses none of these elements, and thus fails to meet his burden. Furthermore, "[i]t 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), and the Attorney General's decision to investigate any particular matter is left to her discretion, see Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("Courts have also refused to review the Attorney General's litigation decisions in civil matters."); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (acknowledging that the Executive Branch "has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case").
The petition for a writ of mandamus will be denied. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: 7/29/16
/s/_________
United States District Judge