White v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 22

ORDER denying 19 Motion For Federal Law Enforcement Investigation.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 6/17/11 (wks)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ALBANY DIVISION ROBIN DONNA WHITE, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : WAL-MART STORES, INC., #0858, : : Defendant. : ____________________________________: CASE NO.: 1:11-CV-35 (WLS) ORDER Before the Court is the pro se Plaintiff’s Motion for Federal Law Enforcement Investigation. (Doc. 19). For the following reasons, Plaintiff pro se’s Motion for Federal Law Enforcement Investigation (Doc. 19) is DENIED. Plaintiff pro se’s Complaint (Doc. 1) alleges that the Defendant-employer discriminated against her in her employment on the basis of her disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff pro se’s instant Motion requests that the Court order “the [a]ppropriate United States Law Enforcement Investigation into” the alleged Whigham Police Department harassment of a third party, Josh Dean, that occurred on the nights of February 25 and 27, 2011. (Doc. 19 at 1-2). Plaintiff pro se asserts that Dean is a witness to the employment discrimination that she allegedly suffered,1 and that an employee of Defendant who has been a source of discrimination is also a member of the Whigham Police Department and was present at both of the alleged occurrences of police harassment of Dean. (Id.). The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested. Even beyond Plaintiff pro se’s obvious standing deficiency, see Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Fla. 1 Indeed, it appears that Dean’s signature is found on a witness statement that is attached to Plaintiff pro se’s Complaint, (see Doc. 1-1 at 8-9), and that Plaintiff pro se has filed multiple statements by Dean (see Doc. 9). 1 State Athletic Comm’n, 226 F.3d 1226, 1230 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Absent exceptional circumstances, a third party does not have standing to challenge injury to another party.”), it is plain that granting Plaintiff pro se’s request would cause the Court to violate the United States Constitution’s Separation of Powers Doctrine. As recently explained by Judge Royal of this District: [A] court has no authority to order a criminal investigation or prosecution. The United States Constitution prescribes a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The investigation and prosecution of crimes is solely a function of the executive branch, and the executive has full discretion in determining what crimes to investigate or prosecute. “It follows, as an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, that the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in the control over their criminal prosecutions.” United States v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 811, 819 n.3 (5th Cir. 1979). Wise v. Heddell, No. 5:09-cv-127 (CAR), 2010 WL 2688730, at *5 (M.D. Ga. July 1, 2010); see United States v. Renfro, 620 F.2d 569, 574 (6th Cir. 1980) (“The decision of whether or not to prosecute, like the decision of whether or not to grant immunity from prosecution, is a decision firmly committed by the constitution to the executive branch of the government.”); see also Bonner v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding Eleventh Circuit precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981). Thus lacking authority to provide the relief requested therein, the Court must find that Plaintiff pro se’s instant Motion should be denied. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff pro se’s Motion for Federal Law Enforcement Investigation (Doc. 19) is DENIED. SO ORDERED, this 17th day of June, 2011. /s/ W. Louis Sands THE HONORABLE W. LOUIS SANDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2

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?