LITTLE v. HOLDER

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/16/2012. (ls, )

FILED
JUL 2 3 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Trevor Little,
Petitioner,

v.
Eric Holder,
Respondent.

Civil Action No.

Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Courts for the District of Columbia

12 12{)4

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought prose, is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a
writ of mandamus and application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon review of the
petition, the Court finds that petitioner has failed to state a claim for such extraordinary relief. It
therefore will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss the petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner's complaint upon a determination that the
complaint, am::.mg other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted).
Petitioner, a prisoner at the United States Penitentiary in Inez, Kentucky, seeks issuance
of the writ to compel Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., "to release him and/or start the process ..
. ." Pet. at 1. Petitioner also seeks to compel an "investigation" of the assistant United States
attorney in the Southern District of West Virginia who "indicted, prosecuted and left Plaintiff in
prison for 16 and a half years." !d.
The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or
employee ofthe United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28
U.S.C. § 1361. The petitioner bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of
mandamus is "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 406 F.3d 723, 729 (D.C. Cir. 2005)

3

(citation omitted). "It is well-settled that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel
discretionary acts." Cox v. Sec'y of Labor, 739 F. Supp. 28, 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases).
And the United States Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to
investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution. See Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v.

Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citing Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234-35
(1965)) (other citations omitted).
Furthermore, mandamus relief is not available when, as here, an adequate remedy exists
in habeas to address the underlying claim. See Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
("Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the
province of habeas corpus[.]") (citation omitted); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804,
806 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (where "habeas is an available and potentially efficacious remedy, it is clear
beyond reasonable dispute that mandamus will not appropriately lie"). Hence, the Court will
dismiss this mandamus action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A
separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: July

~

/.b , 2012

United States District Judge

2