Feick v. Younker et al
ORDER: The plaintiffs claims concerning the filing of criminal charges against the defendants are frivolous. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Signed by Chief Judge Linda R Reade on 2/10/2012. (NEF/copy to Plaintiff via US mail) (pac)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CURTIS W. YOUNKER, UNNAMED
MITCHELL COUNTY SHERIFF
DEPUTIES, PEGGY HANSON,
UNNAMED EMPLOYEES OF
MITCHELL COUNTY CARE
FACILITY, CAROLYN NEISS, MARK
WALK, PAT CLARK ALEX MEYERS,
OLVEN ROHDE, RANDY CONRAD,
LOREN NIESS, MITCHELL COUNTY,
MITCHELL COUNTY CARE
The matter before the court is a “criminal complaint.” The clerk’s office filed such
complaint on February 8, 2012. The plaintiff submits neither the filing fee nor an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (requiring $350.00
filing fee for civil actions, except that on application for a writ of habeas corpus the filing
fee is $5.00); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (explaining proceedings in forma pauperis). Further, the
“criminal complaint” submitted by the plaintiff does not comply with the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (indicating a civil action is commenced by filing
a complaint); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (addressing general rules of pleading). Finally,
with respect to the plaintiff’s assertion that criminal charges should be brought against the
defendants, neither he nor the court have the authority to commence criminal proceedings.
See e.g., United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. 2d
687 (1996) (making clear that it is the executive branch that retains broad discretion to
enforce the Nation’s criminal laws). If the plaintiff believes a crime occurred, he should
consult law enforcement officials, and, after conducting an investigation, those officials
may consult with prosecutors to determine whether charges are warranted. Whether to
prosecute and what charges to file or bring are decisions that rest in the prosecutor's
discretion. See United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124, 99 S. Ct. 2198, 2204, 60
L.Ed.2d 755 (1979); Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364, 98 S. Ct. 663, 668, 54
L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 3100,
41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Parkhurst v. Tabor, 569 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2009). This
court has no power to order the government to prosecute certain individuals. Thus, the
plaintiff’s claims concerning the filing of criminal charges against the defendant are
frivolous. Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 10th day of February, 2012.
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?