Oladayo Oladokun v. DOJ

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 25-5167
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5167 September Term, 2025 1:24-cv-03650-UNA Filed On: March 18, 2026 Oladayo Ade Oladokun,

Appellant

v.

United States Department of Justice,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Henderson, Pillard, and Pan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s March 26, 2025 order denying appellant’s petition for writ of mandamus, and the district court’s June 17, 2025 order denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration, be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that a government agency’s decision to initiate an investigation is a discretionary one, and appellant has not shown that mandamus is appropriate to compel such a decision. See Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234- 35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (holding that “[m]andamus will not lie to control the exercise of” prosecutorial discretion); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831-32, 838 (1985) (stating that the government’s decision whether or not to open an investigation or enforcement United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-5167 September Term, 2025

action is generally not subject to judicial review). Nor has appellant shown that the district court erred in concluding that any amendment to his mandamus petition would have been futile.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2