Is ms planning on ross prosicution

1. What the federal government has said — no DOJ criminal inquiry

Deputy Attorney General statements and contemporaneous reporting make clear the Justice Department has announced it will not open a criminal investigation into Jonathan Ross over the January shooting, and that public messaging from DOJ indicates no prosecutorial action at the federal level is forthcoming based on the facts disclosed so far ^[1][2]. This is not a subtle parsing of procedure: multiple outlets cite DOJ’s explicit position that it is not pursuing criminal charges in this case, which is a definitive public posture from the nation’s chief federal prosecutor ^[1].

2. Administrative and departmental reviews, not prosecutions

While DOJ declined a criminal probe, reporting shows Ross is subject to some form of departmental review at the Department of Homeland Security or ICE administrative processes — a personnel or internal affairs track that can result in discipline but is separate from criminal prosecution ^[1]. DHS Secretary comments confirm an internal review is underway, though reporting also notes DHS provided little detail on whether Ross was placed on administrative leave or returned to work, underscoring the opacity of internal agency processes ^[1].

3. No state-level charges or civil litigation publicly reported

The assembled sources do not identify any active state criminal charges or civil lawsuits filed against Ross as of the latest reports; coverage specifically notes Ross had not faced charges and no civil litigation had been filed in the immediate aftermath ^[1][2]. That absence of filings in public reporting does not prove state prosecutors will never act, but based on the documents provided there is no present indication that Minnesota or local prosecutors had announced plans to charge Ross at the time these items were published ^[1][2].

4. Legal avenues still available to families even if DOJ declines to prosecute

Legal analysts and guides cited in the reporting note that families can pursue other remedies — notably state wrongful-death claims or civil suits alleging negligence or constitutional violations — even when DOJ declines a criminal case, because civil standards and remedies differ from criminal prosecution ^[2]. Reporting flags that wrongful-death statutes and civil litigation remain viable options and that DOJ’s decision not to prosecute does not foreclose civil litigation or state-level action under different legal standards ^[2].

5. Political context and the limits of public reporting

Some coverage places decisions about federal investigations in a broader political frame, noting how political considerations or pre-planned policy choices can shape whether federal prosecutors engage in particular cases, but the sources here do not document a secret prosecutorial plan to charge Ross — instead they document an explicit declination and administrative review, and highlight that political dynamics can affect enforcement priorities ^[2][1]. Where reporting speculates about political influence, those pieces are signaling potential motives or institutional incentives rather than producing evidence that a prosecution is being prepared ^[2].

6. Bottom line — based on available reporting, a prosecution is not being planned

Given DOJ’s public statements declining a criminal investigation, the existence only of internal DHS review, and the lack of reported criminal charges or civil filings against Ross in the cited reporting, there is no factual basis in these sources to conclude that any prosecution of Jonathan Ross is being planned at the federal level; state or civil actions remain possible but, per the reporting supplied, none had been initiated or announced at the time of publication ^[1][2]. If further reporting emerges from state prosecutors or new evidence is disclosed, that assessment could change, but the current record in these sources shows no prosecutorial plan.