Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05094/USCOURTS-caDC-15-05094-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5094 September Term, 2015

1:15-cv-00270-UNA

Filed On: December 29, 2015

Marcus B. Harris,

Appellant

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Honorable, Attorney

General, U.S. Justice Department and

Jonathan Mark Smith, Chief of Civil Rights,

Division in Official Capacity,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Srinivasan and Wilkins, Circuit Judges; Ginsburg, Senior Circuit

Judge

J U D G M E N T

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

supplement the record, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed February 24,

2015, be affirmed. It appears that appellant seeks judicial review of a letter informing

him that the Department of Justice’s Special Litigation Section does not assist

individuals in seeking relief for civil rights violations, and a declaration that his request

for assistance should have been referred to the Attorney General. Appellant’s

complaint invoked 28 U.S.C. § 533(4), which authorizes the Attorney General to appoint

officials to conduct investigations regarding official matters under the Department’s

purview; and his pleadings suggest he wants the Department to investigate his state

conviction. But “‘agency refusals to institute investigative or enforcement proceedings’

are presumed immune from judicial review under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2),” ShoshoneBannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Heckler v.

USCA Case #15-5094 Document #1590863 Filed: 12/29/2015 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-5094 September Term, 2015

Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985)), and appellant has shown no basis for rebutting the

presumption. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to supplement the record be dismissed as

moot. Based on appellant’s description of the document he sent to the Department of

Justice, it is evident that he would not be entitled to the relief he seeks even if the

document were part of the record before this court.

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

Page 2

USCA Case #15-5094 Document #1590863 Filed: 12/29/2015 Page 2 of 2