Steven v. Kobayashi, et al.

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING "CRIMINAL COMPLAINT" WITH PREJUDICE, re 1 - Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 4/22/2022. COURT'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - Jeffrey Steven, aka Jeffrey Steven of the House of Jarrett, shall be served by First Class Mail on 4/22/2022 to the address of record listed on the (NEF). (jni)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JEFFREY-STEVEN of the House of
Jarrett, a.k.a. JEFFREY S. JARRETT,

Case No. 22-mc-207-DKW-KJM
ORDER DISMISSING “CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT” WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
vs.
LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI, et al.,
Defendants.

On April 19, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Jeffrey-Steven of the House of Jarrett
filed a document entitled, “Criminal Complaint,” purporting to initiate, on behalf
of the “United States of America,” a criminal action against a number of
Defendants, including federal judges and federal court staff, for their involvement
in a civil case he filed in 2021. 1 Dkt. No. at 1 (“Complaint”). Plaintiff’s nearly
incomprehensible filing is dismissed with prejudice, as Plaintiff lacks standing to
bring a criminal action.
1

Defendants are “Leslie E. Kobayashi as Federal Judge, Rom E. Trader as Federal Magistrate
Judge, Michelle Rynne as Clerk, Agalelei Elkington as Courtroom Manager, J. Michael
Seabright as Chief Judge, Maui County Corporate Council [sic], Mayor Victorina [sic] and Maui
County Council [sic] et al., State of Hawai’i Attorney General C. Conners [sic] et al, Lieutenant
Governor Green, Governor Ige, Dept. of Health Char [sic] et al, Legislature, Lisa Itomaura,
Daryl Akamichi, Iwalani Lehua Mountcastle Gasmen, Doratee Bandy, Graham Resell, Sharon
OShaghnessy, Michele White, Tanya Quitazol, Blane Kobayashi as Circuit Judge, Jack Naiditch,
and unknown co-conspirators.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1.
1

RELEVANT BACKGROUND
Plaintiff’s rambling and incoherent seven-page Complaint takes issue with
the 2021 dismissal of a civil case he filed in United States District Court for the
District of Hawai’i, in which Plaintiff challenged various COVID-19-related
policies and restrictions imposed by the State of Hawai’i and Maui County. See
Civil Case No. 21-00272-LEK-RT. The Complaint claims “that the Judiciary of
the State of Hawai’i is a criminal enterprises [sic] using creation of bonds, laws,
mandates, and rules for personal gain, political power and control as a branch of
the British Aristocracy Registrar AKA British attorney Guild, and offshoot of the
Templars. They have used their unbridle [sic] power and will to make them the
arbiters of truth and controllers of society world wide [sic]. File Cause of Action
CV21-00272 unstricken is the evidence and proof there of [sic].” Dkt. No. 1 at 4.
The Complaint further alleges, without supporting detail or facts, that, “[w]ithin
the Filing(s) of CV21 00272 and in DC-CV19-0323 the Defendants above and
those of the File Cause of Action are exposed and revealed as conspirators in
crimes against humanity, violators of the Law of Armed Conflict, Laws of
Occupation, war crimes plus civil and criminal [sic].” Id. at 7.
The Complaint asserts eight criminal counts against Defendants, each
supported by a single paragraph written in the same incoherent fashion, invoking
myriad criminal statutes including 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, 242, 402, 1341, 1342, 1956
2

and 1957. Id. at 4–7. It also requests “[a] grand Jury” to “further investigate and
dig into the connections [Defendants] have and those they are linked to, locally,
nationally and internationally with appropriate punishment.” Id. at 7.
DISCUSSION
An Article III court must dismiss an action if, at any point, it becomes clear
that it lacks jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 102–
04 (1998). Federal court jurisdiction is limited to justiciable “Cases” or
“Controversies,” and standing is the “irreducible constitutional minimum”
necessary to pursue a justiciable case or controversy. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992); U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Standing to
initiate a criminal investigation or prosecution lies within the exclusive province
and discretion of the Department of Justice—not the judiciary and not the private
citizenry. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“[A] private
citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution
of another.”); see also Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79–80 (1975) (holding no private
right of action exists under criminal statutes unless there is a clear statutory basis).
None of the statutory provisions invoked by Plaintiff supports a private right
of action. See Dkt. No. 1 at 4–7. Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to invoke the
federal judicial process to pursue his stated criminal causes of action (Counts I–
VIII). See Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 102–04; Linda R.S., 410 U.S. at 619.
3

CONCLUSION
Consistent with the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s “Criminal
Complaint” with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 22, 2022 at Honolulu, Hawai’i.

Jeffrey Steven vs. Leslie E. Kobayashi, et al; Misc No. 22-00207 DKW-KJM;
ORDER DISMISSING “CRIMINAL COMPLAINT” WITH PREJUDICE

4