HAFLER v. BORZANO et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ANDREW JOSEPH HAFLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Civil Action No. 25-02415 (UNA)
)
TOM BORZANO et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). For the following reasons, the Court grants the IFP application and dismisses the
complaint.
Allegedly, Plaintiff is the “private holder of Land Patent No. 2112” for property in
California that “is not subject to county taxation, regulation, or corporate enforcement.” Compl.,
ECF No. 1at 3. He brings a “Criminal Complaint” against the Tax Assessor, Tax Collector, and
two Code Enforcement officials for San Luis Obispo County, California, apparently for issuing
“tax bills, liens, and code enforcement actions against said land under corporate statutes derived
from the 1879 California Constitution.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff seeks equitable relief that includes (1) a
declaration 	nullifying 	the 	1879 	California 	Constitution 	and 	deeming 	“all 	local 	policies
unenforceable against the patent holder” and (2) an order compelling “the FBI and DOJ [to] initiate
immediate civil and criminal investigation[s] into” the alleged “abuses under color of law.” Id. at
4.
The “availability of declaratory [and injunctive] relief presupposes the existence of a
judicially remediable right.” Ali v. Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (cleaned up);
Case 1:25-cv-02415-UNA Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 2

2
see Town v. U..S. Dep’t of the Interior, No. 22-5314, 2025 WL 1446027, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 20,
2025) (per curiam) (declarations and injunctions “are forms of relief, not sources of legal
entitlement”). 	As a private citizen, Plaintiff “lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973).
So he can neither initiate nor compel a criminal investigation of his claims. Heckler v. Chaney,
470 U.S. 821, 831 (1985); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam).
As for any potential civil suit, venue in Washington, D.C., is improper because all of the
defendants and the subject property are in California where the alleged acts occurred. 	See
Montgomery v. Barr, 502 F. Supp. 3d 165, 173 (D.D.C. 2020) (warning against manufactured
venue in the District of Columbia); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) (a civil action may be brought properly
in a judicial district where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated”). Therefore,
this case will be dismissed by separate order.
TREVOR N. McFADDEN
DATE: October 13, 2026 	United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-02415-UNA Document 8 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 2