United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause is before the court on Plaintiff's civil rights
complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1).
Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court may
dismiss this case if satisfied that the action “(i) is
frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The language in this subsection
“tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), ” and thus dismissals for failure to state a
claim are governed by the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6).
Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir.
1997). The allegations of the complaint are taken as true and
are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.
Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 120 F.3d 1390,
1393 (11th Cir. 1997). To survive § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
“a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation and
citation omitted). A claim is plausible on its face where
“the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
(citation omitted). Plausibility means “more than a
sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.” Id. “Where a complaint
pleads facts that are merely consistent with a
defendant's liability, it stops short of the line between
possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Finally, in
civil rights cases, more than “mere conclusory notice
pleading” is required, and a complaint is subject to
dismissal “as insufficient where the allegations it
contains are vague and conclusory.” Gonzalez v.
Reno, 325 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2003) (quotation
and citation omitted). Upon review of the complaint, the
court concludes that facts set forth by Plaintiff fail to
state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.
Dismissal of this action is therefore warranted.
sues the Santa Rosa County Sheriff and other deputy sheriffs.
Her complaint revolves around a domestic incident in which
another individual, Connie Glover, accused Plaintiff of
theft, and Plaintiff requested that Glover leave her
residence. An altercation ensued, during which Glover
allegedly hit Plaintiff in the head with a cellular phone.
Plaintiff also alleges that Glover stole some of her personal
property. Plaintiff alleges that the investigating deputies
falsified reports, apparently regarding Plaintiff's
physical health and dementia. Plaintiff also appears to
complain that the deputies may have believed Glover's
version of events over hers. Plaintiff seeks Glover's
arrest for assault and battery with intent to murder and for
does not have standing to pursue the relief she seeks.
Criminal statutes generally do not provide a vehicle for a
private cause of action. Chen ex rel. V.D. v.
Lester, 364 Fed.Appx. 531, 536 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing
Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347, 1352-53
(11th Cir. 2002)). As a private citizen, Plaintiff “has
no judicially cognizable interest” in the prosecution
of another. Garcia v. Miami Beach Police Dep't,
336 Fed.Appx. 858, 859 (11th Cir. 2009); Otero v. United
States Attorney Gen., 832 F.2d 141 (11th Cir. 1987)
(citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619,
93 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973)); see also Cok
v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (a private
citizen has no authority to initiate a criminal prosecution);
Higgins v. Neal, 52 F.3d 337 (10th Cir. 1995);
Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 226-27 (4th Cir.
1988) (private citizen has no constitutional right to have
other citizens, including state actors, criminally
prosecuted). Additionally, “the courts are not free to
interfere with the discretionary decision of whom to
prosecute.” United States v. Spence, 719 F.2d
358, 361 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Inmates of Attica
Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375,
379-82 (2d Cir. 1973).
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue her claims, she cannot
state a claim on which relief may be granted.
it respectfully RECOMMENDED:
the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to