Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01150/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01150-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals 

Tenth circuit 

DEC 1 31990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

RONALD SCHROEDER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RICHARD THORNBURG, as Attorney General ) 

of the United States, and ) 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1150 

(D.C. No. 90-F-843) 

(D. Col.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Ronald R. Schroeder appeals the district 

court's dismissal of his complaint seeking the appointment of an 

independent counsel under the Ethics in Government Act, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 591-599 (Supp. 1990), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 

and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We 

affirm the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1150 Document: 010110097259 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 1 
The plaintiff petitioned the district court to appoint an 

independent prosecutor to investigate an alleged conflict of 

interest within the United States Department of Justice. He 

alleges that he filed a formal complaint asking for an 

investigation into alleged federal criminal activities by three 

employees of the Internal Revenue Service with the Office of the 

United States Attorney in Denver, Colorado in April 1989. 

Plaintiff claims he has not received any response from this 

office. 

Dismissals of complaints for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction receive plenary review by this court. Connors~ 

Bethlehem Mines Corp., 862 F.2d 461, 463 (3d Cir. 1988). This 

court will assume the factual allegations of the complaint are 

true. All reasonable inferences will be drawn in favor of the 

plaintiff. The complaint will stand unless the plaintiff can 

prove no set of 'facts to support his claim for relief. See Easton 

~ Dorchester Development, Inc., 692 F.2d 727, 731-32 (11th Cir. 

1982). 

We hold the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's 

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Private 

citizens do not have standing to challenge the Attorney General's 

decision not to investigate allegations of wrongdoings by federal 

officials. See Dellums ~ Smith, 797 F.2d 817, 823 (9th Cir. 

1986). We agree with the court's statement in Banzhaf~ Smith, 

737 F.2d 1167, 1169 (D.C. Cir. 1984): 

We find in the Ethics 

congressional intent to 

behest of members of 

General's decisions 

in Government Act a specific 

preclude judicial review, at the 

the public, of the Attorney 

not to investigate particular 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1150 Document: 010110097259 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 2 
allegations and not to seek appointment of independent 

counsel. 

Plaintiff's reliance on Nathan Y...!.. Attorney General, 563 F. 

Supp. 815 (D.D.C. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Nathan Y...!.. 

Smith, 737 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1984), is unfounded. At the time 

that action was filed, section 592(a) of the Ethics in Government 

Act provided that upon receipt of specific information that an 

official had committed a federal offense, the Attorney General was 

required to conduct a preliminary investigation for a period not 

to exceed ninety days. The Attorney General was required either 

to notify the division of the court that no further investigation 

was warranted or to apply for the appointment of a special 

prosecutor. A special prosecutor would also be appointed if the 

Attorney General failed to notify the division of the court that 

no further investigation was warranted within ninety days of the 

receipt of the information. Id. at 1187. The court in Nathan 

concluded that private citizens who had provided information to 

the Attorney General had standing to challenge the Attorney 

General's failure to conduct a preliminary investigation. Id. at 

1189. It noted these individuals had a special interest in 

ensuring the Attorney General acted upon this information. Id. 

The Ethics in Government Act has been amended significantly 

since Nathan was decided. These amendments give the Attorney 

General more discretion in conducting preliminary investigations. 

He is no longer required to conduct a preliminary investigation 

upon receipt of specific information that a federal offense has 

been committed. See 28 u.s.c. § 592 (Supp. 1990). The court's 

rationale in Nathan is therefore no longer applicable. We thus 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1150 Document: 010110097259 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 3 
affirm the district court's dismissal of this action for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1150 Document: 010110097259 Date Filed: 12/13/1990 Page: 4