Bluebell Business Limited v. Jones

Filing 108

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying 103 for Referral for Potential Criminal Investigation filed by Michael Jones; Granting 99 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Motion to Dismiss Case. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 5/13/2022. (c/m 5/13/2022 bas, Deputy Clerk)

Case 1:17-cv-02150-RDB Document 108 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
BLUEBELL BUSINESS LTD.,

*

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

*

v.

*
Civil Action No. RDB-17-2150

MICHAEL JONES,

*

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Currently pending are Defendant Michael Jones’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaims and Dismiss Case (ECF No. 99), Bluebell’s response consenting to Mr. Jones’s
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and requesting the dismissal of its claims (ECF No. 101), and
Defendant Jones’s Motion for Referral for Potential Criminal Investigation (ECF No. 103).
The parties’ submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6
(D. Md. 2021). For the following reasons, both parties’ requests for dismissal are GRANTED,
and Jones’s Motion for Referral for Criminal Investigation is DENIED.
First, Jones’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss is granted with the consent of the parties.
On April 12, 2022, Plaintiff Bluebell Business, Ltd., consented to the dismissal of Jones’s
counterclaims, and “reciprocally move[d] for the simultaneous dismissal of its claims against
Mr. Jones.” (Pl.’s Resp. Consenting to Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 101.) As both requests are
unopposed, Jones’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss and Bluebell’s request for dismissal are
GRANTED, and all claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:17-cv-02150-RDB Document 108 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 2

Second, Jones’s Motion for Referral for Potential Criminal Investigation is not legally
cognizable. Through this Motion, Jones asks this Court to refer Bluebell to the Department
of Justice and the Maryland State’s Attorney to investigate his allegations of “criminal fraud,
theft of money, and extortion.” (ECF No. 103.) However, “in American jurisprudence . . ., a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see, e.g., Downey v. United States, No.
2:19-cv-00497, 2019 WL 6522969, at *1 (S.D.W.Va. Dec. 3, 2019) (“Plaintiff’s Motion to Refer
Criminal Case to the U.S. Attorney . . . ‘is not cognizable because no citizen has an enforceable
right to institute a criminal proceeding.’” (quoting Johnson v. Gray, No. CIV A 305-2064-SB,
2007 WL 201029, at *1 n.2 (D.S.C. Jan. 22, 2007). Accordingly, Jones’s motion is DENIED.
Upon consideration of Defendant Michael Jones’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss
Counterclaims and Motion to Dismiss Case (ECF No. 99), Bluebell’s request for dismissal
(ECF No. 101), and Jones’s Motion for Referral for Potential Criminal Investigation (ECF
No. 103), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Defendant’s Voluntary Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Motion to Dismiss Case
(ECF No. 99), and Plaintiff’s request for dismissal of its claims against Defendant (ECF
No. 101), are GRANTED, and all claims are dismissed with prejudice;
2. Defendant’s Motion for Referral for Potential Criminal Investigation (ECF No. 103)
is DENIED;
3. The clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
Date: May 13, 2022

_____________/s/_____________
Richard D. Bennett
United States Senior District Judge
2