United States District Court, District of Columbia
matter is before the court on its initial review of plaintiff
spro se complaint, affidavit and brief in support of
the complaint, and application for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. The court will grant the in forma
pauperis application and dismiss the case. Plaintiff has
also filed a motion for TRO and a motion to appoint judge.
a state prisoner designated to the South Dakota State
Penitentiary, located in Sioux Falls, has filed a complaint
and affidavit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and
monetary damages. He alleges that the State of South Dakota
Department of Corrections ("SDDC") and its health
care subcontractors have conspired to engage in wide-ranging
fraud and misconduct. As a result, plaintiff alleges that he
has suffered physically and emotionally. He sues the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney
General, a United States Department of Justice Program
Analyst, and "any and all unknown personnel working for
and behalf of the United States within their official and
unofficial capacity." Plaintiffs claims against these
defendants are wholly based in his discontent with their
alleged failure to investigate and/or prosecute the alleged
conspiracy within the SDDC.
decision of whether or not to prosecute, and for what
offense, rests with the prosecution. See, e.g.,
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
"[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen
lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
nonprosecution of another." LindaR.S. v.
Richard £>., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see
also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir.
1997); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35
(D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam) (holding that the judiciary
"will not lie to control the exercise" of Attorney
General's discretion to decide whether or when to
institute criminal prosecution), cert. denied, 384
U.S. 906 (1966); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224,
227 (4th Cir. 1988) (refusing to recognize constitutional
right "as a member of the public at large and as a
victim to have the defendants criminally prosecuted");
Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012)
plaintiff cannot compel a criminal investigation by any law
enforcement agency by filing a complaint. See Otero v.
U.S. Attorney General, 832 F.2d 141, 141-42 (11th Cir.
1987) (per curiam); see also Jafree v. Barber, 689
F.2d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1982). The Executive Branch has
absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct an
investigation or prosecute a case and such decisions are not
subject to judicial review. United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974); see also Powell, 359 F.2d
at 234-35; Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 56 F.3d at
1480-81. "[A]n agency's decision not to prosecute or
enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a
decision generally committed to an agency's absolute
discretion." Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821,
extent that plaintiff alleges constitutional violations
against the SDDC, venue here is improper. Venue in a civil
action is proper only in (1) the district where any defendant
resides, if all defendants reside in the same state in which
the district is located, (2) in a district in which a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
the claim occurred (or a substantial part of the property
that is the subject of the action is situated), or (3) in a
district in which any defendant may be found, if there is no
district in which the action may otherwise be brought.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a). Courts in this jurisdiction must
examine personal jurisdiction and venue carefully to guard
against the danger that a plaintiff might manufacture venue
in the District of Columbia. See Cameron v.
Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C. Cir. 1993). By
naming a federal agency as a defendant, a plaintiff could
attempt to bring a suit in the District of Columbia that
should properly be pursued elsewhere. See Id. Here,
no connection is established between the alleged
constitutional violations within plaintiffs state prison and
the federal defendants. Therefore, these claims shall be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
of these reasons, this case will be dismissed. A separate