Wightman-Cervantes v. Mueller
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120260
D.D.C.2010Background
- Wightman-Cervantes alleges a wide-ranging conspiracy involving Texas state officials and federal agencies to entrap him and cover up misconduct.
- He claims FBI Director Mueller and former AG Gonzales used the FBI to silence his criticisms of Bush-era appointments.
- He asserts the FBI reviewed but declined to investigate his claims due to lack of evidence and seeks removal of the officials from a potential investigation and the appointment of an independent prosecutor.
- He seeks declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief directing recusal and appointment of a special prosecutor.
- Defendants move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (12(b)(1)) and failure to state a claim (12(b)(6)).
- The court separately addresses jurisdiction and merits, ultimately granting dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction or frivolous claims | Wightman-Cervantes seeks federal review of alleged misconduct | Claims are insubstantial conspiracy theories not fit for federal review | Court lacks jurisdiction; claims are patently insubstantial |
| Failure to state a claim under 12(b)(6) | Seeks declaratory/injunctive relief and mandamus to recuse and appoint a special prosecutor | No valid basis under APA or mandamus; discretionary DOJ/FBI actions not reviewable | No plausible claim; dismissal affirmed |
| APA review of agency action | APA review possible for agency refusals to recuse and investigate | No final agency action or statutorily reviewable basis | APA review denied |
| Mandamus to compel investigation | Special prosecutor should be appointed; FBI should investigate | Prosecution/investigation within discretion of AG; mandamus unavailable | Mandamus relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1974) (frail, insubstantial claims lack judicial power)
- Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006 (D.C.Cir.2009) (patently insubstantial/conspiracy claims dismissed)
- Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328 (D.C.Cir.1994) (claims that are abstract or fanciful are dismissed as insubstantial)
- Block v. S.E.C., 50 F.3d 1078 (D.C.Cir.1995) (agency action reviewability is limited; prosecutorial discretion not reviewable)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1985) (agency inaction or discretionary enforcement not subject to judicial review)
- Gant v. FBI, 992 F. Supp. 846 (S.D.W.Va.1998) (FBI's decision to investigate is discretionary; mandamus not available)
- Whittle v. Moschella, 756 F. Supp. 589 (D.D.C.1991) (mandamus cannot compel investigation of family member's death)