Case 1:16-cv-00679-UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 4
`Case 1:16—cv—OO679—UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`FILED
`
`cl
`
`JUL 2 9 2016
`k U S DI t I t
`er
`.
`.
`s r c an
`Barikmptcy courts
`
`d
`
`Civil Action No. 16-0679-UNA
`
`) )
`
`) )
`
`)
`)
`
`) )
`
`)
`
`Derrick Lavell Williams,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. Department of Justice et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION
`
`Plaintiff, an Alabama state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a Complaint against
`
`high-level federal officials, including President Barack Obama, United States Attorney General
`
`Loretta E. Lynch, former Vice President Dick Cheney, United States Senators Jeff Sessions and
`
`Richard Shelby of Alabama, and Senator Charles Schumer of New York. In addition, plaintiff
`
`sues Alabama Governor Robert J. Bentley and several United States Attorneys. See Compl.
`
`Caption. Plaintiff has accompanied the complaint with an application to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be dismissed pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner’s case upon a determination that the complaint
`
`fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or is frivolous).
`
`Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch,
`
`656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires
`
`complaints to contain “(l) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction
`
`[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcrofi‘ v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355
`
`F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In addition, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
`
`

`
`Case 1:l6—cv—O0679—UNA Document 8 “Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 4
`Case 1:16-cv-00679-UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 4
`
`matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”’ Iqbal, 556 U.S.
`
`at 678 (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The allegations “must be
`
`enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the
`
`allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56
`
`(citations omitted). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
`
`conclusory statements,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and legal conclusions couched as factual
`
`allegations do not suffice to state a valid claim, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
`
`678 (“[T]he tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is
`
`inapplicable to legal conclusions”).
`
`In the prolix complaint, plaintiff alleges that he submitted a complaint to the Department
`
`of Justice in 2011 “in regards to officers and officials of several Judiciary Branches [of]
`
`governments, Violating and depriving the petitioner .
`
`.
`
`. of his guaranteed rights within the Laws,
`
`Constitution, and Treaties .
`
`.
`
`. .” Compl. at 3. According to plaintiff, the complaint was
`
`transferred to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and then to its Criminal Division. However, when
`
`plaintiff contacted DOJ in 2013, he allegedly was told that the Civil Rights Division could not
`
`locate his complaint. Id. Therefore, plaintiff has “strong reason to believe that [DOJ] has
`
`intentionally conspired with various infrastructures of the main office sub-division through the
`
`State[s] of Wyoming, Colorado, and Alabama New York [sic] .
`
`.
`
`. in addition to the Judiciary
`
`branches of government of lower inter—agencies within the states previously mentioned, to
`
`hinder, discourage, or stop him .
`
`.
`
`. from asserting [or] exercising” his rights or “receiving the
`
`remedies or relief [he is] afforded[.]” Id. at 4. Plaintiff also accuses “the agencies” of
`
`“attempted murder with others trying to take [his] life by him continuing to pursue and assert
`
`afforded rights.” Id. Plaintiff seeks equitable relief seemingly in the form of an investigation,
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00679-UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 4
`Case 1:l6—cv—O0679—UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 4
`
`criminal prosecutions, and impeachment proceedings. See id. at 21-23. In addition, he seeks
`
`“monetary compensation” for alleged willful deprivations of his “guaranteed federal and state
`
`protective rights [and] an unlawful .
`
`.
`
`. conviction by means of violations of laws, obstruction of
`
`justice, without jurisdiction. .
`
`. .” Id. at 19.
`
`The largely incoherent allegations spanning nineteen pages simply fail to state a plausible
`
`claim for relief against anyone, let alone the named defendants. Moreover, to the extent that
`
`plaintiff is seeking to compel DOJ to investigate the Civil Rights Division for allegedly losing
`
`his complaint, the United States Attorney General generally has absolute discretion in deciding
`
`whether to investigate claims for possible criminal or civil prosecution and, as applicable here,
`
`such decisions are not subject to judicial review. Shosh0ne—Bann0ck Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d
`
`1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see Wightmarz-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)).
`
`The complaint implicating various high-level federal officials and Alabama’s governor in
`
`a vast conspiracy “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact” and thus merits dismissal
`
`under § 1915A also as frivolous. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see Best v.
`
`Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (a court may dismiss as frivolous “essentially fictitious”
`
`claims suggesting, e. g., “bizarre conspiracy theories”) (citations and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted); Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1307-08 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (“A court may dismiss as
`
`frivolous complaints .
`
`.
`
`. postulating events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind.”).
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00679-UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 4
`Case 1:l6—cv—O0679—UNA Document 8 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 4
`
`Hence, this case will be dismissed with prejudice. A separate Order accompanies this
`
`Memorandum Opinion.
`
`Date:
`
`:1,
`July 2, 6 ,2016
`
`2\
`
`M
`
`United States District ud