Court Opinion

ID: 4016068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-15 15:01:45.227029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:09.649618
License: Public Domain

. ~_,._ t .c… .m-.,.....<..1._...,,....~..~..,.M,.....,.~.¢....?.,.~.,»,,~ .»emm.....,-w»-rw~w.-qmm~»»g~ »».»»»~,-,»a».».-r.».~t

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBlA

Jean Paul Gamarra, )
)
Pla‘““ff» ) case; 1;16-¢\/-01454
) Assigned To : Unassigned
V' § Assign. bare ; 7/14/2016
Hillary Rodham clinton ) Descr\pt\on. Pro Se Gen. Clvl| (F Deck)
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis The Court will grant the application and
dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3)
(requiring the court to dismiss an action "at any time" it determines that subject matter
jurisdiction is wanting).

Plaintiff purports to bring a "Civil Treason Complaint" against United States presidential
candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. The United States 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-
Bcmnock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Wightman-Cervantes v.

Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 80 (D.D.C. 2010) ("[A]n agency’s decision whether to prosecute,

investigate, or enforce has been recognized as purely discretionary and not subject to judicial

review.") (citing Block v. SEC, 50 F.3d 1078, 1081-82 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (other citation omitted)).

Furthermore, the initiating document consists of aimless words and phrases and is simply

incomprehensible. And a district court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction "when the
l

, ..…,i.,…..~ -~». .»"N,.r.¢.~,»w.¢<».~.,,.».,,mmw....'.~v~.»._.._...,,wm .~..»,,..... v..w~».,~»._»-»»..~_,_.....,._...-m,~,~.»,.- »~,.~..~»,w,"-..TW-(-.»»-- »~»-»»»nn-»w»@w,»»~»rm»¢»~m»-»~»»=»,-»q»»w~¢»~w . .,...,..., , , v

complaint ‘is patently insubstantial, presenting no federal question suitable for decision."’
Caldwell v. Kagan, 777 F. Supp. 2d l77, 178 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Tooley v. Napolz'tano, 586
F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A

separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

U§ited States Distrli 

Date: July  %,¢2`01 6

. ,» ,…W .r.iw,,» ».,~»=… ,.,