Summary Calendar APPARAJAN GANESAN v. United States Attorney, United States State Department, Internal Revenue Service,…

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
January 12, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50519
Summary Calendar
APPARAJAN GANESAN
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT
Defendants - Appellees
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A-03-CV-30-JN
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and EMILIO M. GARZA and BENAVIDES,
Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Apparajan Ganesan, Texas inmate # 904088, challenges the
district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 1361 mandamus
petition requesting an order compelling various federal agencies
to initiate criminal and deportation proceedings against his ex-
wife. The district court’s refusal to issue the writ is reviewed

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-50519
-2-
for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Denson,
603 F.2d 1143, 1146 (5th Cir. 1979) (en banc).
“[M]andamus is not available to review the discretionary
acts of officials.” Giddings v. Chandler, 979 F.2d 1104, 1108
(5th Cir. 1992). A U.S. Attorney exercises absolute discretion
regarding whether to initiate a criminal prosecution. United
States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504, 507-08 (5th Cir. 1975); United
States v. Cox, 342 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1965) (en banc).
The court may not interfere with the free exercise of that
discretionary power. Cox, 342 F.2d at 171. Similarly, the
Attorney General has the discretion to decline to commence
deportation proceedings, which discretion is not subject to
judicial interference. See Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180 F.3d 199,
205 (5th Cir. 1999). Moreover, even assuming federal officials
owed a duty to prosecute or to initiate criminal proceedings,
that duty was not owed to Ganesan, and he lacks standing to
challenge the officials’ alleged failure to act. See Giddings,
979 F.2d at 1110. Dismissal of the petition was proper, and the
district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --