Jackson v. United States

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: June 10, 2014
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2014-0992
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED

JUN 1 0 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FoR THE DISTRICT oF coLUMB1A clerk, U-S- District and bankruptcy Courts

Michael Lafayette Jackson, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) ..

v. ) Civil Action No. / q 7 ) United States of America, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and application to proceed in forma pauperz`s. The application will be granted and the case will be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 S(e)(Z)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia suing the United States. He alleges, among other things, that "certain government agencies and individuals have committed fraud" and have "attempted to intimidate [him] to move from the washington D.C. area." Compl. at l. Plaintiff lists individuals residing in Maryland who he "believe[s] are to be or affiliated with" the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Plaintiff then recounts in a lengthy narrative various and seemingly unrelated "experience[s]" dating back to 1996 that the listed individuals allegedly "controlled." Id. at 2.

Plaintiff has demanded no relief. However, he "add[s]" that he has notified the Department of Justice "on this matter" but has not "heard back from them . . . ." Id. at 6. To

the extent that plaintiff is seeking an investigation of his claims, the United States Attorney l

General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. As a general rule applicable to the circumstances of this case, such decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see accord Wightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 20l0) (citing cases); Martinez v. U.S., 587 F. Supp. 2d 245, 248-49 (D.D.C. 2008) (same).

Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

ta District Judge

j yA/L¢.j

Date: June 7 ,2014