Oladayo Ade Oladokun appealed from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which had denied his petition for a writ of mandamus and subsequently denied his motion for reconsideration. The underlying dispute involved Oladokun's attempt to compel the Department of Justice to initiate an investigation. He also filed a motion in the appellate court requesting the appointment of legal counsel to represent him in these proceedings.
The panel issued a per curiam judgment affirming the district court's orders. The court reasoned that a government agency's decision to initiate an investigation is a discretionary one. Citing Heckler v. Chaney, the court noted that the government's decision whether or not to open an investigation or enforcement action is generally not subject to judicial review. The court further relied on Powell v. Katzenbach, which holds that mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Additionally, the court found that Oladokun had not shown that the district court erred in concluding that any amendment to his mandamus petition would have been futile. Regarding the request for counsel, the court applied the standard for civil cases, stating that appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits.
The decision reinforces the broad principle that courts cannot compel federal agencies to open investigations or enforcement actions. It confirms that the discretion to initiate such actions lies with the agency, not the judiciary. The ruling also sets a high bar for pro se appellants seeking appointed counsel in civil appeals, requiring a demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits. The mandate is withheld for seven days to allow for any timely petitions for rehearing.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download