Gamarra v. Clinton

Opinion

. ~_,._ t .c… .m-.,.....<..1._...,,....~..~..,.M,.....,.~.¢....?.,.~.,»,,~ .»emm.....,-w»-rw~w.-qmm~»»g~ »».»»»~,-,»a».».-r.».~t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Jean Paul Gamarra, ) ) Pla‘““ff» ) case; 1;16-¢\/-01454 ) Assigned To : Unassigned V' § Assign. bare ; 7/14/2016 Hillary Rodham clinton ) Descr\pt\on. Pro Se Gen. Clvl| (F Deck) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) (requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff purports to bring a "Civil Treason Complaint" against United States presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution and, as a general rule applicable here, such decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone- Bcmnock 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)).

Furthermore, the initiating document consists of aimless words and phrases and is simply

incomprehensible. And a district court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction "when the l

, ..…,i.,…..~ -~». .»"N,.r.¢.~,»w.¢<».~.,,.».,,mmw....'.~v~.»._.._...,,wm .~..»,,..... v..w~».,~»._»-»»..~_,_.....,._...-m,~,~.»,.- »~,.~..~»,w,"-..TW-(-.»»-- »~»-»»»nn-»w»@w,»»~»rm»¢»~m»-»~»»=»,-»q»»w~¢»~w . .,...,..., , , v

complaint ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision."’ Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d l77, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Tooley v. Napolz'tano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

U§ited States Distrli

Date: July %,¢2`01 6

. ,» ,…W .r.iw,,» ».,~»=… ,.,