1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PAUL HANSMEIER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1410 (UNA)

) 

WILLIAM P. BARR, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiff’s

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis

application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate 

dismissal of a prisoner’s action upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted ). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell 

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiff is a federal prisoner incarcerated at 

the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. He wants to sue individuals for 

copyright infringement but allegedly “faces a credible risk of criminal prosecution for fraud and 

extortion in connection with bringing his copyright enforcement cases.” Compl. ¶ 19. 

Apparently, this would add to Plaintiff’s indictment in “late-2016” for mail and wire fraud based 

on similar “enforcement” conduct, id. ¶ 11, which he moved unsuccessfully to dismiss. See 

United States v. Hansmeier, No. 16-cr-00334, 2017 WL 3971874, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017) 

(“The Indictment in this criminal case against Defendant Paul R. Hansmeier charges him in 18 

7/16/2020
2 

counts, including one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, five counts of 

mail fraud, ten counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and 

one count of conspiracy to commit and suborn perjury.”). 

Plaintiff wants this Court to “enjoin” U.S. Attorney General William Barr “from pursuing 

[Plaintiff] and those assisting him for fraud or extortion for enforcing copyrights via the Olan 

Mills method.” Compl. ¶ 3 (citing Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., 23 F.3d 1345, 1347-48 

(8th Cir. 1994) (upholding investigative scheme of copyright holder that merely provided the 

suspected infringer “an opportunity to infringe upon four clearly marked copyrights”)). The 

Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible 

criminal or civil prosecution, and, as a general rule applicable here, such decisions are not 

subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 

1995); see Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (“[A]n agency’s decision not to 

prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally 

committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”); United States 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”). Therefore, Plaintiff has stated no plausible 

claim to relief. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

/s/ 

JAMES E. BOASBERG 

United States District Judge

DATE: July 16, 2020