Halliday v. Barr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ROBERT B. HALLIDAY III, et al.,
Petitioners,
v. Case No. 20-cv-3444 (CRC)
MONTY WILKINSON, in his official
capacity as Acting Attorney General of the
United States, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioners Robert B. Halliday III and Patricia M. Halliday filed this petition for a writ of
mandamus to compel a federal investigation into the disappearance of their son, Private Richard
K. Halliday of the U.S. Army. The Court concludes that this case must be dismissed because it
is clear on the face of the petition that the Court is powerless to grant the relief petitioners seek.
I. Background
The following facts are alleged in the petition. Robert and Patricia Halliday are the
parents of Private Richard K. Halliday, who disappeared from the Fort Bliss military base in
Texas. Redacted Pet. 2, ECF No. 2. They allege that Private Halliday’s disappearance
“materialized in July of 2020” and that the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (“CID”) “has
failed to do its most rudimentary duties” in investigating potential perpetrators behind the
disappearance, including those who “may be in military uniform.” Id.
Understandably experiencing “an aura of grief” and feeling “hopeless as to finding
closure,” id., petitioners filed this action in November 2020 against the Attorney General of the
United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The petition seeks an
order directing respondents to “commence an immediate investigation” and to notify the Court
and petitioners of that investigation. Id. 4. Petitioners hope the investigation will lead to
“prosecution of all the parties involved” in Private Halliday’s disappearance. Id.
In December 2020, petitioners filed an ex parte motion, again seeking to compel an
investigation of the disappearance.
It appears from the docket that the petition has not been served on the respondents. The
respondents have not entered appearances in the case.
II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a complaint may be dismissed for
“failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” A district court may dismiss a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) on its own motion “whenever the plaintiff cannot possibly win
relief.” Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 331 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
deciding whether to dismiss a complaint sua sponte for failure to state a claim, a court “should
presume that the complaint’s factual allegations are true, construing them liberally in the
plaintiff’s favor.” Lemon v. Kramer, 270 F. Supp. 3d 125, 141 (D.D.C. 2017).
III. Analysis
After carefully reviewing the petition, the Court finds it clear that petitioners cannot win
any relief. The Court will therefore dismiss the petition on its own motion under Rule 12(b)(6).
“[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.” Heckler v.
Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985). Accordingly, a court “cannot compel a criminal investigation
by any law enforcement agency by means of a writ of mandamus.” Ballance v. Peeples, No. 10-
cv-0864, 2010 WL 3069201, at *1 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2010) (citing Otero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 832
F.2d 141, 141-42 (11th Cir. 1987)). This legal proposition is so settled that courts will invoke it
2
sue sponte to dismiss claims that “stem from [the government’s] alleged failure to investigate
and prosecute alleged crimes.” Kidwell v. FBI, 813 F. Supp. 2d 21, 28 (D.D.C. 2011); see also
Zernik v. DOJ, 630 F. Supp. 2d 24, 27 (D.D.C. 2009) (“[I]t is well established that this Court
cannot order the Executive Branch to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to perform an
investigation.”); Whittle v. Moschella, 756 F. Supp. 589, 596-97 (D.D.C. 1991).
Here, the relief petitioners seek is a court order requiring the Attorney General and the
FBI Director to investigate Private Halliday’s disappearance. This is precisely the type of
mandamus petition that other courts in this district have found appropriate for sua sponte
dismissal. See, e.g., Kidwell, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 28; Zernik, 630 F. Supp. 2d at 27; Whittle, 756
F. Supp. at 596-97. While the Court sympathizes with petitioners and does not doubt the
sincerity of their convictions, it must conclude that they “cannot possibly win relief.” Best, 39
F.3d at 331.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will dismiss the petition and deny petitioners’ ex
parte motion. A separate Order shall accompany this memorandum opinion.
CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
United States District Judge
Date: February 11, 2021
3