From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fuller v. Unknown Off. From Justice Dept

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 22, 2010
387 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

Summary

stating that "there is no private cause of action for perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621; subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622; false declarations before a grand jury or court, 18 U.S.C. § 1623; or false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"

Summary of this case from Burke v. Kentucky

Opinion

No. 10-5112.

July 22, 2010.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

George V. Fuller, Washington, DC, pro se.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

BEFORE: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.


JUDGMENT


This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and appendix filed by the appellant. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed March 16, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly denied appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus and dismissed the action, because appellant has not shown a "clear and indisputable right" to mandamus relief. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). The Executive Branch has absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); see also 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). Moreover, appellant has not demonstrated that the appellees owed him a duty to prosecute particular individuals. To the extent appellant attempted to raise causes of actions based on criminal statutes, there is no private cause of action for perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621; subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622; false declarations before a grand jury or court, 18 U.S.C. § 1623; or false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. See Central Bank of Denver v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, 511 U.S. 164, 190, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) (refusing to infer a private right of action from a "bare criminal statute"); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Widnall, 57 F.3d 1162, 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.


Summaries of

Fuller v. Unknown Off. From Justice Dept

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Jul 22, 2010
387 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

stating that "there is no private cause of action for perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621; subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622; false declarations before a grand jury or court, 18 U.S.C. § 1623; or false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"

Summary of this case from Burke v. Kentucky

stating that "there is no private cause of action for perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1621; subornation of perjury, 18 U.S.C. § 1622; false declarations before a grand jury or court, 18 U.S.C. § 1623; or false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001"

Summary of this case from Harrison v. Conlin
Case details for

Fuller v. Unknown Off. From Justice Dept

Case Details

Full title:George V. FULLER, v. Appellant UNKNOWN OFFICIALS FROM THE JUSTICE…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Jul 22, 2010

Citations

387 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2010)

Citing Cases

Wade v. Robertson

As for Robertson's alleged violation of federal criminal law, none of the six cited statutes provides a…

Szplett v. Kenco Logistic Servs.

The complaint purports to bring claims (Counts 10-11) under several criminal statutes that do not confer a…