## •



# N UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED MAR 31 

# ?:-m Raphael Mendez, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy 

### Courtsforthe District of Columbia Petitioner, 

### v. Members ofthe United States Government, etal., Respondents. Civil ActionNo. 

# 11 0654

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review ofpetitioner'sprose petition for a writ ofquo warranto and application to proceed informapauperis. The application will be granted and the petitionwill be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1915(e)(2) (requiring dismissal ofan action upon a determination thatthe complaint, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted). "A quo warranto action is brought against a personwho 'usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises' public office." Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, 

## *1 (D.D.C., Dec. 22,1993) (quoting D.C. Code 

### § 16-3501). "Itis designed for attacks on an officer's title, not for attacks on [an] officer's actions." 

### Id. "The Court ofAppeals for this Circuithas held that
a quo warranto action against a public official maybe brought onlyby the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney." Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). Because "officials have broad discretion
-- especially in cases involving public officials, as opposed to corporate officers
- to refuse to sue,"Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984), the Court lacksjurisdictionto review such decisions. See Shoshone 

# 3Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) ("In both civil and criminal cases, courts have long acknowledged thatthe Attorney General's authority to control the course ofthe federal government's litigation is presumptively immune fromjudicial review."). Petitioner, confined at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, claims that he is a pretrial detainee who "wantsto go to trial for the inflicted injurie [sic] be [sic] made on February 20, 1990 in [St. Thomas, Virgin Islands] underthe DocketNo. 90-Cr-43." Compl. at 1. He names as defendants United States Virgin Islands Delegate to Congress DonnaM. Christensen and "U.S. Congressional House on House Ethics." Compl. Caption. Petitionerhas stated no facts to support a quo warranto action, and any civil claims he may have against officials in the Virgin Islands should be filed in the local or federal court there. To the extentthat petitioner is challenging his confinement, his recourse lies, ifat all, in the United States District Court for the District ofMinnesotavia apetition for a writ ofhabeas corpus directed at his immediate custodian in Rochester. See Rooneyv. Secretary of Army, 405 F.3d 1029,1032 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (habeas "jurisdictionis proper only in the district in whichthe immediate, notthe ultimate, custodian is located") (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Stokes v. Us. Parole Commission, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("[A] district court may not entertain
a habeas petition involving present physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorialjurisdiction."). Hence, this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

### Unite~District Judge

2