Karr v. Kerry ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Ryan Karr, )
    )
    Plaintiff, )
    ) Case: 1:14—cv—02099
    V, ) Assigned To : Unassigned
    ) Assign. Date : 12/12/2014
    John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, ) Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil
    )
    Defendant. )
    W
    This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the plaintiff‘s pro se complaint and
    application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will
    be dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case upon a
    determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).
    Plaintiff is a resident of Santa Monica, California. Alleging that he contributed to the
    capture of Osama bin Laden, plaintiff “seeks to compel the Secretary of State to at the very least
    review and consider his claim [for remuneration from the Rewards for Justice Program] and
    conclude . . . that he made a positive impact in the search, capture and elimination of bin Laden.”
    Compl. 1] 4. Plaintiff claims “that there are several incredibly strong indications stemming from
    the mission reports generated by the members of the team that eliminated bin Laden that [the]
    intelligence [he] provided . . . to both the USAF and the Office of Special Investigations . . .
    [made] its way into Operation Gemonimo[.]” 
    Id. 1] 18.
    The extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is available to compel an "officer or
    employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to plaintiff." 28
    U.S.C. §1361. Plaintiff bears a heavy burden of showing that his right to a writ of mandamus is
    l
    "clear and indisputable." In re Cheney, 
    406 F.3d 723
    , 729 (DC. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).
    “It is well settled that a writ of mandamus is not available to compel discretionary acts.” Cox v.
    Sec’y ofLabor, 
    739 F. Supp. 28
    , 30 (D.D.C. 1990) (citing cases).
    The Rewards for Justice Program is administered by the Department of State, and the
    Secretary of State has “the sole discretion” to pay a reward, subject only to consultation with the
    Attorney General. 22 U.S.C. § 2708(b). The Secretary’s decision is “final and conclusive and
    shall not be subject to judicial review.” 
    Id., § 27080);
    see Heard v. US. Dep ’t of State, No. 08-
    02123, 
    2010 WL 3700184
    , at *3-4 (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 2010) (dismissing rewards program claim
    for want of subject matter jurisdiction). Plaintiff “acknowledges that the prosecution of a
    Rewards for Justice claim does not provide for judicial review[.]” Compl. 11 20. In the absence
    of jurisdiction, the Court cannot grant his “simple” request “for someone in the State Department
    to listen” to his dubious claims. 
    Id. 11 22;
    see 
    id. 1111 5-19
    (Statement of Facts). A separate Order
    of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    DATE: December 5 , 2014
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2014-2099

Judges: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

Filed Date: 12/12/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/12/2014