FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRIC COURT JAN 13 2010
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CO UMBIA
Clerk, U.S. District and
Bankruptcy Courts
CARMON ELLIOTT, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No·10 0058
)
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, )
I
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM OPIN ON
This matter comes before the Court on review ofpet·tioner's application to proceed in
I
forma pauperis and his pro se petition for a writ of manda us. The Court will grant the
application and deny the petition.
Mandamus relief is proper only if "(1) the plaintiff s a clear right to relief; (2) the
defendant has a clear duty to act; and (3) there is no other a1equate remedy available to plaintiff."
Council of and for the Blind of Delaware County Valley v. 4egan, 709 F.2d 1521,1533 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (en banc). The party seeking mandamus has the 'burden of showing that [his] right to
issuance ofthe writ is 'clear and indisputable.'" Gulfstrea Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas
Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citing Bankers Life & Cas Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379,384
(1953)). Where the action petitioner seeks to compel is disc etionary, he has no clear right to
relief and mandamus therefore is not an appropriate remedy. See, e.g., Heckler v. Ringer, 466
U.S. 602, 616 (1984). Petitioner does not establish any oft ese elements.
Generally, petitioner challenges the Attorney Genera's decision not to prosecute the
government officials he deems responsible for the abuse an torture of persons detained during
,
I
I
the so-called "war on terror." The Court has no power to c mpel the Attorney General to
prosecute a particular individual or to investigate a particul matter. See United States v. Nixon,
418 U.S. 683,693 (1974) (acknowledging that the Executi Branch "has exclusive authority
and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a cas "); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d
234,234-35 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 38 U.S. 906 (1966) ("[T]he question of
whether and when prosecution is to be instituted is within t e discretion of the Attorney General.
Mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of this discret on."). Because petitioner fails to
demonstrate his clear right to relief, the Attorney General's lear duty to act, and the lack of any
other remedy, his petition will be denied.
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinio will be issued separately on this
same date.
United States istrict Judge- ~ 6t1If