Gamble v. Hines

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell. The action will be dismissed by separate Order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. cc:Plaintiff, pro se; Defendant (ERH) Modified on 5/2/2014 (ERH).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT PADUCAH
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14CV-P79-R

BENNIE L. GAMBLE, JR.

PLAINTIFF

v.
CIRCUIT JUDGE JEFF R. HINES

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the criminal complaint filed by Plaintiff Bennie L.
Gamble, Jr., in which he attempts to bring criminal charges against Defendant Circuit Judge
Jeff R. Hines. Gamble alleges that Defendant violated federal criminal statutes. Where the form
requests the facts on which the criminal complaint is based, Gamble states, “Constitutional: Fact
doctrine, Jurisdictional: Fact doctrine, Constitutional tort, Government tort, Intentional tort,
Negligent tort, Personal tort, Prima: facie.”
Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, “If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” It is
axiomatic that federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and their powers are
enumerated in Article III of the Constitution. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Hudson v. Coleman, 347 F.3d 138, 141 (6th Cir. 2003) (“[I]t is well
established that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power
authorized by the Constitution and statute.”). “Jurisdiction defines the contours of the authority
of courts to hear and decide cases, and, in so doing, it dictates the scope of the judiciary’s
influence.” Douglas v. E.G. Baldwin & Assocs. Inc., 150 F.3d 604, 606 (6th Cir. 1998), overruled
on other grounds by Cobb v. Contract Transp., Inc., 452 F.3d 543, 548-49 (6th Cir. 2006). The

party that seeks to invoke a federal district court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing the
court’s jurisdiction. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.
“It is well settled that the question of whether and when prosecution is to be instituted is
within the discretion of the Attorney General.” Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 235 (D.C.
Cir. 1965). Only federal prosecutors, and not private citizens, have authority to initiate federal
criminal charges. See Sahagian v. Dickey, 646 F. Supp. 1502, 1506 (W.D. Wis. 1986); see also
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (“Executive Branch has exclusive authority and
absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case.”); see also Saro v. Brown, 11 F. App’x
387, 388 (6th Cir. 2001) (“A private citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal
prosecution; that power is vested exclusively in the executive branch.”).
Gamble is a private citizen and cannot initiate criminal charges against anyone. He
therefore fails to establish the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court will
dismiss the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) by separate Order.
Date:

May 2, 2014

cc:

Plaintiff Gamble, pro se
Defendant
4413.010

2