Keselica v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al
Filing
5
ORDER dismissing 1 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; finding as moot 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; adopting 3 Report and Recommendations. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 2/23/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF
)
INVESTIGATION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________)
MICHAEL KESELICA,
C.A. No. 15-379 S
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
On October 5, 2015, Magistrate Judge Lincoln D. Almond issued
a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 3) on Plaintiff’s
Petition for Writ of Mandamus (“Petition”), recommending that it
be dismissed pursuant to the Court’s screening authority under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R on
October 19, 2015 (“Objection”).
(ECF No. 4.)
For the reasons
that follow, the Court OVERRULES the Objection and ACCEPTS the R&R
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
I.
Background
Plaintiff’s Petition stems from an alleged failure by the FBI
to address Plaintiff’s complaints about blog posts concerning
Plaintiff and his purported business. Through a series of letters,
Plaintiff requested the Government investigate the blog’s alleged
crimes.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office, while acknowledging receipt
of Plaintiff’s letters, notified him that it did not plan to take
action against the blog.
(Ex. C to Pl.’s Pet., ECF No. 1-3.)
Plaintiff persisted, appearing on October 2, 2014 at the U.S.
Attorney’s Office in Providence, where he again presented the
alleged crimes committed against him.
1.)
(Pl.’s Pet. 3-4, ECF No.
The FBI declined to interview or take Plaintiff’s statement.
With the Government’s decision not to act, Plaintiff turned
to this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering the FBI
to initiate an investigation, interview him, and shut down the
blogs.
(ECF No. 1).
allegations,
Plaintiff’s
After carefully considering Plaintiff’s
Magistrate
Petition
Judge
pursuant
Almond
to
28
recommended
U.S.C.
§
dismissing
1915(e)(2)
as
frivolous and for failure to state any legally viable claims.
Magistrate Judge Almond’s recommendation is well founded.
II.
Application
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Court has jurisdiction over “any
action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee
of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed
to
the
plaintiff.”
“Mandamus
may
properly
issue
when
three
elements are present: (1) a clear right in the plaintiff to the
relief sought; (2) a plainly defined and preemptory duty on the
part of the defendant to do the act in question; and (3) no other
adequate remedy available.”
Cervoni v. Sec’y of HEW, 581 F.2d
2
1010,
1019
available
(1st
only
illegality.”
Id.
Cir.
under
1978).
But
exceptional
“[t]he
mandamus
circumstances
remedy
of
is
clear
And 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).
Here, Plaintiff’s mandamus petition asks the Court to order
the FBI to investigate his complaint and take action on his behalf.
Problematic for Plaintiff’s petition, however, is that the FBI’s
decision to investigate or not to investigate alleged criminal
activity is a discretionary act and mandamus relief is generally
improper to compel such investigations.
Cervantes
v.
Mueller,
750
F.
Supp.
2d
See, e.g., Wightman76,
81
(D.D.C.
2010)
(collecting cases); Gant v. FBI, 992 F. Supp. 846, 848 (S.D. W.Va.
1998).
Magistrate Judge Almond, thus, did not err in recommending
denial of Plaintiff’s writ petition.
Further, as Magistrate Judge Almond pointed out, Plaintiff
has failed to show that there is no other adequate remedy available
to him to alleviate the alleged harm created by the blog.
In its
December 21, 2015 letter, the U.S. Attorney’s Office noted that
Plaintiff was free to seek a remedy regarding the allegedly harmful
blog material via a defamation lawsuit against the bloggers or the
FBI for what Plaintiff perceives as complicity in the defamatory
material.
(Ex. C to Pl.’s Pet., ECF No. 1-3.)
Consequently,
Plaintiff has failed to show he has no other adequate legal remedy
3
with
regard
to
the
allegedly
harmful
blogs,
providing
alternative basis for denying his mandamus petition.
an
See Cartier
v. Sec’y of State, 506 F.2d 191, 199 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (“[T]he
alternative remedies that might call for refusal to resort to writ
of mandamus encompass judicial remedies, as well as administrative
ones.” (internal citations omitted)).
Finally, though not considered in the R&R, Plaintiff asks
this Court to issue a writ compelling the FBI to return certain
documents to him.
the
mandamus
The Court denies this request.
remedy
circumstances.
is
only
available
As noted above,
under
exceptional
This is not such a circumstance.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED
and the Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1).
Plaintiff’s Petition is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: February 23, 2016
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?