DOMINQUEZ v. DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al, No. 1:2014cv01469 - Document 3 (D.D.C. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/3/14.(ah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DOMINQUEZ v. DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al Doc. 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA RALPH DOMINQUEZ, Plaintiff, v. DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 14-1469 (KBJ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Ralph Dominquez is a prisoner incarcerated at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York. 1 In his form Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, states his claim as follows: Everything started when I tried to expose criminal acts and civil rights violations by the D.O.P. and the heads of state responded by seeking restorbution [sic], which if expose[d] would have one question their reasoning in aidding [sic], abetting and, committing that which is clearly defined within both state and federal criminal codes/laws and civil rights. (Compl. at 5.) Plaintiff wants the Court [t]o give or show cause why the collective structures should not be investigated, declared a criminal enterprise as [intelligible] by R.I.C.O. and the doctrine of GRAYLORD! (Id.) (emphasis in original.) Plaintiff 1 Plaintiff paid the $400 filing fee applicable to civil actions. In an attachment to the complaint, he points to the discrepancy between the fee he paid and the $350 filing fee listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1914. The Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees accompanying § 1914 imposes a $50 administrative fee that does not apply to applications for a writ of habeas corpus or to persons granted in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Fee Schedule ¶ 14. Since this action falls in neither category, the $400 filing fee applies. 1 Dockets.Justia.com names as defendants the Director of the FBI, United States A.G., and Uniformed Federal District Courts for the State of New York. (Compl. Caption.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen a prisoner s civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee [thereof] and to dismiss the complaint upon determining that it, among other grounds, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id., § 1915A (a)(b)(1). For the following reasons, the Court will DISMISS this case. A separate order consistent with this opinion will follow. The Court has carefully read the complaint. Although pro se filings are accorded liberal interpretation, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) (per curiam), they still must comply substantially with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) ( [A] plaintiff filing pro se [cannot] ignore the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or expect the Court to decide what claims a plaintiff may or may not want to assert. ). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the minimal pleading standard. A complaint should contain (1) 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 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 677-78 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Although Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, . . . it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me-accusation, and a complaint containing naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement is insufficient. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2009)). 2 Plaintiff has not alleged any facts establishing misconduct for which the named entities can be held liable, nor has he cited a legal basis for his claim. As a general rule, the federal criminal statutes provide no private cause of action. See Risley v. Hawk, 818 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21-22 (D.D.C. 1996). And the United States, of which the named defendants are a part, is subject to civil suit only upon consent unequivocally expressed in statutory text[.] Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996) (citations omitted). To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to compel an investigation of criminal activity, his claim fails because 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-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir. 1995); see accord Wightman-Cervantes v. Mueller, 750 F. Supp. 2d 76, 81 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing cases); Martinez v. U.S., 587 F. Supp. 2d 245, 248-49 (D.D.C. 2008) (same). Hence, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A compels the Court to dismiss this case. Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson United States District Judge DATE: October 3, 2014 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
