Lighter v. U.S. Grand Juries for the Northern District of California et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ERIC LIGHTER,

9

Plaintiff,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 12-6250 SI (pr)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

11

U.S. GRAND JURIES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
12 CALIFORNIA; et al.,
13

Defendants.
/

14
15

A criminal case against Eric Lighter is now pending in this district, United States v.

16

Lighter, No. CR 05-215 EJD. Lighter has been found guilty of several crimes and his motion

17

for new trial is pending. Although represented by counsel in the criminal case, Lighter

18

apparently filed many documents pro se in it. See Docket # 310 in Case No. CR 05-215 EJD

19

(order stating that "the court has not and will not consider Defendant's pro se filings unless and

20

until an appropriate reason to do so is presented.")

21

Eric Lighter commenced this action by filing a complaint in which he alleged that a grand

22

jury in the Northern District of California "failed to receive and/or honor [Lighter's] felony

23

confession(s), [grand jury] bonding, and [grand jury] pleadings and exhibits" in several pending

24

cases." Docket # 1, p. 2. He seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

25

This is the second case filed by Lighter in which he seeks judicial enforcement of his

26

claimed right to present evidence to a grand jury. As the court explained in dismissing his earlier

27

action:

28

1
2
3
4
5

A private individual does not have Article III standing to compel the grand jury to
consider evidence. See Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067 (D. D.C. 1997). . . . Lighter has
no Article III standing to present evidence to the grand jury. He has no right to be heard
by the grand jury as an end to itself. And he has not identified any underlying property
or liberty interest in the grand jury proceedings as to which procedural due process
protections (such as an opportunity to be heard) would attach. Most notably, Lighter has
no legal right to initiate or prosecute a criminal charge. See generally Navarro-Vargas,
408 F.3d at 1200; see also United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979)
("whether to prosecute and what charge to file or bring before a grand jury are decisions
that generally rest in the prosecutor's discretion.")

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Order of Dismissal in In Re. Lighter, No. C 12-2802 SI.
The complaint in this action repeats claims made in Case No. C 12-2802 SI. The
complaint is frivolous because it asserts claims duplicative of those raised and rejected in the
earlier action. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey v.
Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) (duplicative or repetitious litigation of virtually
identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious). The
court must dismiss an in forma pauperis action at any time if it determines that the action "is
frivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED
with prejudice because it is frivolous. The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 18, 2013

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2