## Facts

- Present and former inmates of Attica, a deceased inmate’s mother, and a state assemblyman sued federal and state officials after the 1971 Attica uprising and the state’s retaking of the facility.
- Plaintiffs alleged that before the uprising inmates were subjected to cruel treatment and that, during and after the retaking, state officers intentionally killed some inmates, assaulted surrendered prisoners, stole or destroyed property, and denied medical care to hundreds of wounded inmates.
- Plaintiffs alleged that a specially appointed state deputy attorney general was not investigating crimes by state officers and that the United States Attorney likewise failed to investigate or prosecute alleged federal crimes by state officials.
- The suit sought injunctive and mandamus-type orders compelling federal and state officials to investigate, present evidence to grand juries, and prosecute alleged offenders.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal court may compel a United States Attorney, through mandamus (28 U.S.C. § 1361) or equitable relief, to investigate and prosecute alleged federal crimes at the request of private parties.
2. Whether a federal court may compel state officials to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of state criminal law.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held that federal courts lack authority to compel a United States Attorney to investigate or prosecute because those decisions are discretionary executive functions.
- The court held that federal courts may not order state officials to initiate or pursue state criminal prosecutions, both because prosecution is discretionary and because federal judicial control of state criminal charging decisions would conflict with federalism principles.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 is available only to enforce a clear, ministerial, nondiscretionary duty owed to the plaintiff; it does not permit courts to direct discretionary prosecutorial decisions.
- Decisions whether to investigate, charge, and prosecute are core executive functions generally insulated from judicial direction, including when sought by alleged victims.
- Federal equitable power does not authorize courts to supervise or compel prosecutorial charging decisions, given separation-of-powers constraints.
- Federal courts lack authority to compel state prosecutions where no mandatory state-law duty to prosecute is identified and where such relief would intrude on state control of criminal law enforcement.
- Private parties have no judicially enforceable right to require criminal investigations or prosecutions of others.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that courts cannot order federal or state prosecutors to investigate or bring criminal charges based on private complaints, because charging decisions are discretionary and judicial compulsion would violate separation-of-powers limits and, as to state prosecutions, basic federalism constraints.


Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375 (2d Cir. 1973)