Hepburn v. Mueller

District of Columbia

Hepburn v. Mueller

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedFebruary 15, 2011

DocketCivil Action No. 2011-0386

StatusPublished

This text of Hepburn v. Mueller (Hepburn v. Mueller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hepburn v. Mueller, (D.D.C. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

` FILED

UNITED sTArEs DISTRICT CoURr FEB 1 5 zg" FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLuMBlA cien<, u_s_ D,st,i,,t 3_ Bank,u Courts for the District of Columb;a Chris Hepbum, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) » » v. ) Civil Action No. 1 ) Robert Mueller, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of mandamus and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e), the Court is required to dismiss a civil action upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Petitioner, a resident of Waterford, Ireland, sues the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He seeks to compel the FBl to investigate an alleged "theft of funds from [his] late daughter’s charity." Compl. at 2. 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. The 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 ofLabor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. l990) (citing

cases).

The United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. This Court has no authority to compel the Attorney General via the FBl to investigate suspected criminal activity. See Shoshone-Barznock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. l995) (citing Powell v. Katzerzbach, 359 F.Zd 234-35 (1965)) (other citations omitted). The Court therefore will dismiss

the case. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

'i ,' ,/ ' _ f cL United States Distrfct Judge l Date: February [@ , 2011

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

` FILED

UNITED sTArEs DISTRICT CoURr FEB 1 5 zg" FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLuMBlA cien<, u_s_ D,st,i,,t 3_ Bank,u Courts for the District of Columb;a Chris Hepbum, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) » » v. ) Civil Action No. 1 ) Robert Mueller, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of mandamus and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court will grant the IFP application and dismiss the case. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e), the Court is required to dismiss a civil action upon a determination that it, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § l9l5(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Petitioner, a resident of Waterford, Ireland, sues the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He seeks to compel the FBl to investigate an alleged "theft of funds from [his] late daughter’s charity." Compl. at 2. 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. The 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 ofLabor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. l990) (citing

cases).

The United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. This Court has no authority to compel the Attorney General via the FBl to investigate suspected criminal activity. See Shoshone-Barznock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. l995) (citing Powell v. Katzerzbach, 359 F.Zd 234-35 (1965)) (other citations omitted). The Court therefore will dismiss

the case. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

'i ,' ,/ ' _ f cL United States Distrfct Judge l Date: February [@ , 2011

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hepburn v. Mueller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hepburn-v-mueller-dcd-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack