GEORGE V. FULLER,

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHEDISTRICT OFCOLUMBIA

Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) CivilActionNo. UNKNOWNOFFICIALS FROM THEJUSTICEDEPARTMENT, ) ) ) ) Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED MAR 1 62010 NANCYMAYERWHIITlNGTON,CLERK U.S.DISTRICTCOURT


# 10 {)438

This matter comes before the Court on review ofpetitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, motion to use a post office box as his mailing address, and hispro se complaint, which is construed as a petition for a writ ofmandamus. Mandamus reliefis proper only if "(1) the plaintiffhas a clear right to relief; (2) the defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other adequate remedy available to plaintiff." Council of and for the Blindof Delaware County Valley v. Regan, 709 F.2d 1521, 1533 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the "burden ofshowing that [his] rightto issuance ofthe writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" GulfstreamAerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing BankersLife & Cas. Co. v. Hoiland, 346 U.S. 379, 384 (1953». Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is discretionary, he has no clear right to reliefand mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any ofthese elements. Petitioner alleges that three attorneys representing Harris County, Texas in a civil casebefore the United States District Court for the Southern District ofTexas allowed their witnesses to commitperjury and to submit false declarations. See Pet. at 3. Petitioner complained to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation and to the United States Department of Justice, id., and he alleges that the government's failure to act onthese complaints violated his "civil and constitutional rights to equal protectionunder 18 USC. "lId. at 4. Among other relief, petitioner demands a writ ofmandamus directing defendants "toperform a legal duty owed" to him. Id. at 9. Insofar as petitioner demands an order directing defendants to prosecute particular individuals, the Courthas no such authority. Only the Attorney General determines whether
or when to prosecute an individual or to investigate a particular matter. See UnitedStates 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"); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam) ("[T]he question ofwhether and whenprosecution is to be instituted is withinthe discretion ofthe Attorney General. Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise ofthis discretion."), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966); 28 U.S.C. § 547(1) (stating that "each United States Attorney, withinhis district, shall

... prosecute for all offenses against the United States"). Petitioner neither demonstrates his clear right to reliefnor articulates the legal duty defendants owe him, nor shows that no other remedy is available to him. Moreover, petitioner cannot bring a civil action onthe basis ofdefendants' alleged

The Courtpresumes that"18 USC" is a reference to Title 18 ofthe United States Code pertaining to crimes and criminal procedure.violation ofcriminal statutes. SeeAbou-Hussein v. Gates, 657 F. Supp. 2d 77, 81 (D.D.C. 2009) ("Moreover, plaintiff's claims offraud or false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 241 are also barredbecause these criminal statutes do not expressly create aprivate right ofaction upon which plaintiffmay sue defendants.") (citations omitted); Isbell v. Stewart & Stevenson, Ltd., 9 F. Supp. 2d 731,734 (S.D. Tex. 1998) (finding that "here is no basis under [18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623] for any private right of action"); see also Ebbing v. Butler County, Ohio, No. 1:09-CV-00039, 2010 WL 596470, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2010) (affirming magistratejudge's recommendationto deny a motion to amend the complaint where plaintiffsought to add claims that defendant violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242, 1621, 1623, and 2235, among others, because there was no private right ofaction under these criminal statutes). The Court will deny the petition and dismiss this action. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately on this same date.

United States DistrictJudge