Winston v. United States
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL WINSTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 25-0752 (UNA) ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2), his pro se civil complaint, and motion for preliminary injunction (ECF
No. 3. The application is GRANTED, the complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED
without prejudice for the reasons stated below, and the motion for preliminary injunction is
DENIED as moot.
The complaint describes injuries Plaintiff allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident,
assaults Plaintiff allegedly has sustained, criminal convictions and incarcerations, and the alleged
theft of property belonging to Plaintiff and his late mother. Plaintiff demands an order directing
the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute the criminal acts described in the
complaint. This the Court cannot do. The decision to conduct an investigation, or not, is
discretionary, see Gage v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 22-cv-0283,
2022 WL 602451, at *1 (D.D.C.
Feb. 28, 2022) (“The decision whether and when to investigate a particular matter is
quintessentially discretionary[.]”), and “courts cannot compel the executive branch to initiate an
investigation because such decisions are ‘generally committed to an agency’s absolute
discretion,’” Sherven v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel, No. 23-cv-0754,
2023 WL 2954440, at *1
1 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2023) (quoting Heckler v. Chaney,
470 U.S. 821, 831(1985)). A separate order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
DATE: April 10, 2025 /s/ TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge
2
Reference
- Status
- Published