Winston v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL WINSTON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0752 (UNA)

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), his pro se civil complaint, and motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 3. The application is GRANTED, the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice for the reasons stated below, and the motion for preliminary injunction is DENIED as moot.

The complaint describes injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident, assaults Plaintiff allegedly has sustained, criminal convictions and incarcerations, and the alleged theft of property belonging to Plaintiff and his late mother. Plaintiff demands an order directing the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the criminal acts described in the complaint. This the Court cannot do. The decision to conduct an investigation, or not, is discretionary, see Gage v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-cv-0283, 2022 WL 602451, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 2022) (“The decision whether and when to investigate a particular matter is quintessentially discretionary[.]”), and “courts cannot compel the executive branch to initiate an investigation because such decisions are ‘generally committed to an agency’s absolute discretion,’” Sherven v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, No. 23-cv-0754, 2023 WL 2954440, at *1

2

(D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2023) (quoting Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

DATE: April 10, 2025 /s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge