Lee v. Department of Justice

Federal Circuit

Lee v. Department of Justice

366 F. App'x 177

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2010

DocketNo. 09-5098

StatusPublished

This text of 366 F. App'x 177 (Lee v. Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lee v. Department of Justice, 366 F. App'x 177 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 4, 2009 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus, as appellant has not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Carp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). The U.S. Attorney General has absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct an investigation or prosecute a case. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); see also Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam) (the prosecuto-rial discretion of the Attorney General may not be controlled through mandamus). Moreover, appellant has not demonstrated that the appellees owed him a duty to investigate his allegations or to forward them to the Attorney General.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the appellant. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 4, 2009 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed appellant’s petition for a writ of mandamus, as appellant has not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Carp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). The U.S. Attorney General has absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct an investigation or prosecute a case. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); see also Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C.Cir.1965) (per curiam) (the prosecuto-rial discretion of the Attorney General may not be controlled through mandamus). Moreover, appellant has not demonstrated that the appellees owed him a duty to investigate his allegations or to forward them to the Attorney General.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

366 F. App'x 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-department-of-justice-cafc-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack