1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RALPH DOMINQUEZ , ) ) P laintiff , ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1 4

- 1469 (KBJ) ) DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL ) BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al ., ) ) ) Defendant s . )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Ralph Dominquez is a prisoner incarcerated at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York. 1 In his form “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights,”
Plaintiff , proceeding pro se , states his claim as follows: Everything started when I tried to expose criminal acts and civil rights violations by the D.O.P. and the heads of state responded by seeking restorbution [sic], which if expose[d] would have one question their reasoning in ai dding [sic] , abetting and, committing that which is clearly defined within both state and federal criminal codes/laws and civil rights. ( Compl. at 5. ) Plaintiff wants the Court “[t]o give or show cause why the collective structures should not be investigated, declared a criminal enterprise as [intelligible] by R.I.C.O. and the doctrine of GRAYLORD!” ( Id

. ) ( e mphas i s in original.) Plaintiff

1 Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee applicable to civil actions . In an attachment to the complaint, he points to the discrepancy between the fee he paid and the $350 filing fee listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914. T he “Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees” accompanying § 1914 imposes a $50 administrative fee that “does not apply to applications for a writ of habea s corpus or to persons granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” Fee Schedule ¶ 14. Since this action falls in neither category , the $400 filing fee applies

.2 names as de fendants the Director of the FBI, “ United States A.G. ,” and “Uniformed
Federal District Courts for the State of New York. ” (Compl. Caption.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen a prisoner’s civil action seeking “redress from a g ov ernmental entity or officer or employee [thereof]” and to dismiss the complaint upon determining that it , among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id ., § 1915A (a)

- (b)(1). F or the following reasons , the Court will DISMISS th is case. A separate order consistent with this opinion will follow. The Court has carefully read the complaint. Although p ro se filings are

acco rded liberal interpretation , Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520

- 21 (1972) (per curiam) , they still must comply substantially with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch , 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) (“[A] plaintiff filing pro se [cannot] ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or expect the Court to decide what clai ms a plaintiff may or may not want to assert.”)

. Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the minimal pleading standard. A complaint should contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556
U.S. 662 677

- 78 (2009) ; Ciralsky v. CIA , 355 F.3d 661, 668

- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the

- defendant

- unlawfully

- harmed

- me - accusation,” and a complaint containing “ ‘naked assert ion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’ ” is insufficient. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2009)).3 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing misconduct for which the named
entities can be held liable , nor has he cited a legal basis for his claim

. As a general rule, the federal criminal statutes provide no private cause of action

. S ee Risley v. Hawk , 818 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21

- 22 (D.D.C. 1996) . And the United States, of which the named defendants are a part, is subject to civil suit only upon consent “ unequivocally expressed in statutory text[.]” Lane v. Pena , 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). T o the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to compel an investigation of criminal activity , h is claim fails because the United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution , a nd, as a general rule applicable here, s uch decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shoshone

- Bannock Tribes v. Reno , 56 F.3d 1476, 1480

- 81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see accord Wightman

- Cervantes v. Mueller , 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing cases); Martinez v. U.S. , 587 F. Supp. 2d 245 , 248

- 49 (D.D.C. 2008) (same). Hence, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A compels the Court to dismiss this case

. 

## Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson United States District Judge DATE: October 3, 2014