United States District Court, District of Columbia
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
This matter comes before the court on review of plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis with his pro se civil complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.
The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ("[A] a complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."). According to plaintiff, defendants have failed to perform their various law enforcement duties by bringing criminal charges against the individuals and entities who allegedly have stolen plaintiff's songs, books, and other intellectual property. Having reviewed the plaintiff's complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. Furthermore, the decision to investigate or prosecute a particular case is left to the discretion of Attorney General, not the courts. See Shoshone Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("Courts have also refused to review the Attorney General's litigation decisions in civil matters."); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (acknowledging that the Executive Branch "has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case").
The Court will grant plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1)(B). An Order consistent with ...