No. 08-5359.United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Filed On: March 12, 2009.
BEFORE: Tatel, Brown, and Griffith, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam
ORDER
Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause filed on January 2, 2009, and the response thereto; the “Motion for Order to Third-Party Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651,” and the “Motion to Compel Immediate Intercession; Find for Panel Review of Order of 09-25-08,” construed as motions for injunctive relief, it is
ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. It is
FURTHER ORDERED, on the court’s own motion, that the district court’s order filed on July 24, 2008 be summarily affirmed. The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See TaxpayersWatchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The U.S. Attorney General has absolute discretion to decide whether to conduct any investigation or prosecute any alleged offender, and such decisions are generally not subject to review. See UnitedStates v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). To the extent appellant seeks an order directing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate his claims, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable” right to mandamus relief.Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988). See Powell v.Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General may not be controlled through mandamus). It is
Page 2
FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining motions be dismissed as moot.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.