Hansmeier v. Barr

FILED
7/16/2020
Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Columbia
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
PAUL HANSMEIER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 20-1410 (UNA)
)
WILLIAM P. BARR, )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter, brought pro se, is before the Court on review of the complaint and plaintiff’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis
application and dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring immediate
dismissal of a prisoner’s action upon a determination that the complaint fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted ).
A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiff is a federal prisoner incarcerated at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota. He wants to sue individuals for
copyright infringement but allegedly “faces a credible risk of criminal prosecution for fraud and
extortion in connection with bringing his copyright enforcement cases.” Compl. ¶ 19.
Apparently, this would add to Plaintiff’s indictment in “late-2016” for mail and wire fraud based
on similar “enforcement” conduct, id. ¶ 11, which he moved unsuccessfully to dismiss. See
United States v. Hansmeier, No. 16-cr-00334, 2017 WL 3971874, at *1 (D. Minn. Sept. 8, 2017)
(“The Indictment in this criminal case against Defendant Paul R. Hansmeier charges him in 18
1
counts, including one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, five counts of
mail fraud, ten counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and
one count of conspiracy to commit and suborn perjury.”).
Plaintiff wants this Court to “enjoin” U.S. Attorney General William Barr “from pursuing
[Plaintiff] and those assisting him for fraud or extortion for enforcing copyrights via the Olan
Mills method.” Compl. ¶ 3 (citing Olan Mills, Inc. v. Linn Photo Co., 23 F.3d 1345, 1347-48
(8th Cir. 1994) (upholding investigative scheme of copyright holder that merely provided the
suspected infringer “an opportunity to infringe upon four clearly marked copyrights”)). The
Attorney General has absolute discretion in deciding whether to investigate claims for possible
criminal or civil prosecution, and, as a general rule applicable here, such decisions are not
subject to judicial review. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480-81 (D.C. Cir.
1995); see Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985) (“[A]n agency’s decision not to
prosecute or enforce, whether through civil or criminal process, is a decision generally
committed to an agency’s absolute discretion.”); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693
(1974) (acknowledging that the Executive Branch “has exclusive authority and absolute
discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”). Therefore, Plaintiff has stated no plausible
claim to relief. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
DATE: July 16, 2020
2