Court Opinion

ID: 9395446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 21:01:32.978701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:08.480055
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SUSAN KNISELY,                                )
                                              )
               Plaintiff,                     )
                                              )
       v.                                     )       Civil Action No. 23-01271 (UNA)
                                              )
MERRICK GARLAND                               )
Honorable,                                    )
                                              )
                                              )
                Defendant.                    )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a Complaint, ECF No. 1, and an application to proceed

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2. The Court will grant the application and dismiss this action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring immediate dismissal of a case upon a

determination that the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted).

       Plaintiff is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada, who has sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick

Garland. The complaint’s incoherency is reason enough to dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

8 (minimum pleading requirements); Jiggetts v. District of Columbia, 319 F.R.D. 408, 413 (D.D.C.

2017), aff’d sub nom. Cooper v. District of Columbia, No. 17-7021, 2017 WL 5664737 (D.C. Cir.

Nov. 1, 2017) (a complaint that is “rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and

confusing material will patently fail [Rule 8(a)’s] standard”). Nevertheless, Plaintiff seeks to

compel “the U.S. Attorney General [to] resolve the public corruption problem obstructing justice

that is preventing” Plaintiff “from filing a civil lawsuit in this Court against the Islamic Republic

of Iran and collecting restitution[.]” Compl. at 5 (Relief). But courts cannot compel the executive

branch to initiate an investigation or a prosecution because such decisions are “generally

committed to an agency’s absolute discretion,” Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985), and
“[m]andamus will not lie to control the exercise of this discretion,” Powell v. Katzenbach, 359

F.2d 234, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Therefore, this case is dismissed appropriately for failure to state

a claim. A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

                                                     _________/s/_____________
                                                     CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
Date: May 16, 2023                                   United States District Judge

                                                 2