Johnson et al v. Champion

Filing 50

ORDER denying 45 Motion For Federal Criminal Investigation. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 1/24/2013. Copy mailed to Plaintiffs. (tgw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION REGINALD JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RANDALL CHAMPIONS, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION 12-0334-WS-M ) ) ) ) ORDER The plaintiffs have filed a “motion for an [sic] federal criminal investigation.” (Doc. 45). The plaintiffs, citing no authority, insist the Court has a “mandatory administrative dut[y] to receive any offer of information of a federal crime” and commits “a felony under related obstruction of justice statutes” if he “blocks such report.” (Id. at 2). The Court has conducted an expansive search of the entirety of federal jurisprudence and has located only three instances in which a party has filed a “motion for criminal investigation.” In all three, the motion was summarily denied, without discussion. Brennan v. Aulls, 1987 WL 38439 at *1 (6th Cir. 1987); Stewart v. Warden, 2012 WL 141476 at *1 n.1 (D. Md. 2012); Fleming v. Lackawanna County, 2010 WL 4224626 at *1 (M.D. Pa. 2010). The Court does likewise. The motion for a federal criminal investigation is denied.1 DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of January, 2013. s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 By its action, the Court does not “block” the plaintiffs’ request; the Court simply leaves the plaintiffs to the ordinary means of seeking such an investigation, i.e., by communication directly with law enforcement authorities.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?