477 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1973)
In September 1971, an inmate uprising occurred at New York State’s Attica Correctional Facility, resulting in the killing of 32 inmates and the wounding of many others during the recapture of the prison.1 Plaintiffs, consisting of present and former inmates of Attica, the mother of an inmate who was killed, and New York State Assemblyman Arthur O. Eve, commenced a purported class action in the Southern District of New York against state officials including the Governor of New York, the State Commissioner of Correctional Services, the Executive Deputy Commissioner of the State Department of Correctional Services, the Superintendent at Attica, State Police, Corrections Officers, and other officials, as well as the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York.2
The complaint alleges that before, during, and after the revolt and recapture, the defendants committed, conspired to commit, or aided and abetted in the commission of crimes against the inmates, including intentional subjection to cruel treatment prior to the riot, unprovoked killings by state officers during recovery, assaults and beatings after surrender, theft or destruction of personal property, and malicious denial of medical assistance to over 400 wounded inmates.3
Robert E. Fischer was appointed by the Governor as a Deputy State Attorney General to supersede the District Attorney of Wyoming County and investigate crimes relating to the takeover and recapture with a specially convened grand jury.4 The complaint asserts that Fischer has not investigated and does not intend to investigate any crimes committed by state officers.5 It further asserts that because of his appointment by the Governor he cannot neutrally investigate the responsibility of the Governor and other state officers.6
With respect to the United States Attorney, the complaint alleges that he has not arrested, investigated, or instituted prosecutions against any of the state officers for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, despite the duty under 42 U.S.C. § 1987.7
Plaintiffs sought relief in the nature of mandamus requiring the State of New York to submit a plan for independent investigation and prosecution, appointment of an impartial prosecutor and judge, and requiring the United States Attorney to investigate, arrest, and prosecute the state officers.8 The district court, Judge Lloyd F. MacMahon, dismissed the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted, and plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit.9
Whether victims of alleged crimes have standing to compel federal and state officials to investigate and prosecute the alleged perpetrators?10
No. The plaintiffs consist of present and former inmates of Attica Correctional Facility, the mother of a killed inmate, and Assemblyman Arthur O. Eve, who allege direct physical injuries from unprovoked killings, assaults, and denial of medical care by state officers during and after the September 1971 uprising, as well as the threat of continued harm if prosecutions do not occur.13 The court observed that these allegations might satisfy the direct-injury requirement under Linda R.S. v. Richard D. but expressly declined to resolve the standing question.14
The court found it unnecessary to decide whether the plaintiffs possess standing to seek the requested relief.15
Whether a federal court may issue a writ of mandamus compelling a United States Attorney to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242?16
Federal mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is unavailable to compel a United States Attorney to investigate or prosecute alleged criminal violations.17 The decision whether to prosecute lies within the executive branch's discretion, and 42 U.S.C. § 1987 does not eliminate that discretion despite its use of the word 'required.'18
No. The complaint alleges that the United States Attorney for the Western District of New York failed to arrest, investigate, or prosecute state officers for violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 arising from the Attica events.19 The court held that prosecutorial discretion remains intact.20 The separation of powers doctrine bars judicial interference with the United States Attorney's choice not to prosecute.21 This holds even when the allegations involve serious civil-rights violations and even though the complaint invokes the mandatory language of 42 U.S.C. § 1987.22
A federal court may not issue a writ of mandamus compelling the United States Attorney to investigate and prosecute the alleged violations.23
Whether a federal court may compel state prosecuting authorities to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of state criminal laws?24
Federal courts will not compel state prosecutors to investigate or prosecute alleged state crimes under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.25 New York law vests prosecutors with unreviewable discretion to decide whether to bring charges.26 The extraordinary relief of appointing an impartial prosecutor and judge exceeds judicial capacity to supervise prosecutorial decisions.27
No. The complaint alleges that Deputy Attorney General Robert E. Fischer, appointed by the Governor to investigate crimes related to the Attica uprising, has neither investigated nor intends to investigate crimes committed by state officers.28 Plaintiffs sought an order requiring New York to submit a plan for independent prosecution together with appointment of an impartial prosecutor and judge.29 The court held that no statutory duty creates a mandatory obligation enforceable by federal mandamus and that the inherent difficulties of judicial supervision of state prosecutions render such relief unavailable.30
A federal court may not compel state prosecuting authorities to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of state criminal laws.31