Cooper v. Grief et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 3/8/2017; a separate order shall enter.cc:plaintiff pro se, defendants (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
MICHAEL COOPER
v.

PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:17-CV-6-TBR

SKYLA GRIEF et al.

DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the criminal complaint filed by Plaintiff Michael
Cooper, in which he attempts to bring criminal charges against Defendants Skyla Grief, Joy
Myers, Jill Robertson, Troy Belt, and Randy White. Cooper alleges that Defendants tampered
with a witness to a federal proceeding in violation of a federal criminal statute. Where the form
requests the facts on which the criminal complaint is based, Cooper states, “Defendants are doing
everything in their power to stop Brandon Bruin and Garfield Evans from being witnesses to my
law suit. They are suicide watch in 7 c/H on constant watch. Defendants are trying to thrawt my
proceeding in court.”
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 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 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. 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.”); 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.”).
Cooper 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:

March 8, 2017

cc:

Plaintiff Cooper, pro se
Defendants
4413.010

2