Moss v. Garland

W.D. Virginia

Moss v. Garland

DecidedAugust 9, 2024

Docket7:24-cv-00302

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Moss v. Garland, (W.D. Va. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA August 09, 2024 ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK s/A. Beeson KEITH EDWARD MOSS, ) DEPUTY CLERK Petitioner, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00302 ) v. ) ) By: Michael F. Urbanski MERRICK GARLAND, et al., ) Senior United States District Judge Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Keith Edward Moss, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Moss seeks to compel the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia to prosecute various state and local officials for allegedly conspiring to violate his federal constitutional rights. For the following reasons, the petition is DENIED. Pederal district courts have jurisdiction in “‘any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.” In re Pizzuto, 475 F. App’x 468, 468 (4th Cir. 2012). A party seeking a writ of mandamus must show that “his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable” and that he “has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). Moss is unable to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief. The Supreme Court has held that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution of nonprosecution of another,” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619

(1973), and that the federal government “retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute,” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). Accordingly, the relief sought by Moss is “not available by way of mandamus.” In re Pizzuto, 475 F. App’x 468-69 (denying a petition that sought to compel the investigation and prosecution of several individuals); see also In re Givens, 407 F. App’x 699, 699 (4th Cir. 2011) (same). For these reasons, Moss’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: August 9, 2024 Mike Urbanski Senior U.S. District 2024.08.09 12:23:11 -04'00' Michael F. Urbanski Senior United States District Judge

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

CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COU IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT □□□ FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA August 09, 2024 ROANOKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK s/A. Beeson KEITH EDWARD MOSS, ) DEPUTY CLERK Petitioner, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00302 ) v. ) ) By: Michael F. Urbanski MERRICK GARLAND, et al., ) Senior United States District Judge Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Keith Edward Moss, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Moss seeks to compel the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia to prosecute various state and local officials for allegedly conspiring to violate his federal constitutional rights. For the following reasons, the petition is DENIED. Pederal district courts have jurisdiction in “‘any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. “Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances.” In re Pizzuto, 475 F. App’x 468, 468 (4th Cir. 2012). A party seeking a writ of mandamus must show that “his right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable” and that he “has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” Media Gen. Operations, Inc. v. Buchanan, 417 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2005). Moss is unable to show that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief. The Supreme Court has held that “a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution of nonprosecution of another,” Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619

(1973), and that the federal government “retains broad discretion as to whom to prosecute,” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985). Accordingly, the relief sought by Moss is “not available by way of mandamus.” In re Pizzuto, 475 F. App’x 468-69 (denying a petition that sought to compel the investigation and prosecution of several individuals); see also In re Givens, 407 F. App’x 699, 699 (4th Cir. 2011) (same). For these reasons, Moss’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: August 9, 2024 Mike Urbanski Senior U.S. District 2024.08.09 12:23:11 -04'00' Michael F. Urbanski Senior United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moss v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moss-v-garland-vawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack