Auleta v. United States Department of Justice, 80 F. Supp. 3d 198

Plaintiff, a New York state prisoner and practitioner of Wicca with Native American–based beliefs, alleges DOCCS discriminated and retaliated against him for practicing a non-mainstream religion and that DOJ refused to intervene after he filed a complaint with DOJ in 2009.
He sued the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Holder, and five DOJ employees in their official and individual capacities under RLUIPA, Title VI, and 42 U.S.C. § 3789d, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief (and originally brought in part as a Bivens action).
The Northern District of New York transferred the case to D.D.C. as DOJ defendants and alleged wrongful conduct relating to DOJ occurred in D.C.; some state defendants were voluntarily dismissed earlier.
The Clerk entered defaults against five individual DOJ employees after they did not appear; the United States moved to set aside the defaults and to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
The court found service on the individual defendants insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, granted the motion to vacate the defaults, and held DOJ’s decision not to investigate is committed to prosecutorial discretion and not judicially reviewable.
The court also dismissed the individual-capacity claims under the PLRA screening standard and for failure to state a Bivens claim because the complaint sought only injunctive/declaratory relief and did not plausibly allege personal involvement by the federal officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOJ’s refusal to investigate is judicially reviewable	DOJ had a statutory duty to investigate plaintiff’s complaint and should be compelled to act	Attorney General and DOJ decisions to investigate or prosecute are discretionary and not reviewable	Dismissed: decision not to investigate is committed to agency/prosecutorial discretion and not subject to judicial review
Whether individual-capacity Bivens claims survive screening	Plaintiff contends federal officials’ failure to act violated his rights and seeks relief against them individually	Defendants argue PLRA screening and Bivens standards require personal involvement and monetary relief; claims are insufficient	Dismissed: Bivens claim fails (no plausible personal-involvement allegations and plaintiff seeks only injunctive/declaratory relief)
Validity of defaults and personal service on individual defendants	Plaintiff relied on process returns showing service at DOJ headquarters to obtain defaults	Defendants contend process returns do not prove proper individual service and move to vacate defaults	Vacated: service was inadequate; defaults set aside and policy favors adjudication on the merits

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (agency prosecutorial-discretion decisions generally not reviewable)
Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (agency decision not to prosecute or enforce is normally committed to agency discretion)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible factual allegations showing each government official’s personal involvement)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (implied damages action against federal officers for constitutional violations)
Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Bivens remedy limited to damages)
Simpkins v. District of Columbia, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (personal-service requirements for Bivens actions)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (subject-matter jurisdiction is prerequisite to merits consideration)