Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50519/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 12, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50519

Summary Calendar

 

APPARAJAN GANESAN

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT

Defendants - Appellees

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-03-CV-30-JN

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,

Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Apparajan Ganesan, Texas inmate # 904088, challenges the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1361 mandamus

petition requesting an order compelling various federal agencies

to initiate criminal and deportation proceedings against his exwife. The district court’s refusal to issue the writ is reviewed

 Case: 03-50519 Document: 0051227447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2004
No. 03-50519

-2-

for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Denson,

603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc).

“[M]andamus is not available to review the discretionary

acts of officials.” Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108

(5th Cir. 1992). A U.S. Attorney exercises absolute discretion

regarding whether to initiate a criminal prosecution. United

States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 507-08 (5th Cir. 1975); United

States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965) (en banc). 

The court may not interfere with the free exercise of that

discretionary power. Cox, 342 F.2d at 171. Similarly, the

Attorney General has the discretion to decline to commence

deportation proceedings, which discretion is not subject to

judicial interference. See Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180 F.3d 199,

205 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover, even assuming federal officials

owed a duty to prosecute or to initiate criminal proceedings,

that duty was not owed to Ganesan, and he lacks standing to

challenge the officials’ alleged failure to act. See Giddings,

979 F.2d at 1110. Dismissal of the petition was proper, and the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-50519 Document: 0051227447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/12/2004