Pitlor v. T.D. Ameritrade et al

Filing 11

ORDER - that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (filing 10 ) is denied. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (KLF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
DAVID PITLOR,
Plaintiff,

8:17-CV-359

vs.
ORDER
T.D. AMERITRADE and KUTAK
ROCK LLP,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on a filing by the plaintiff (filing 10)
that the Court understands, in part, to be a motion to reconsider. The motion
will be denied.
Briefly summarized, the plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its
Memorandum and Order of September 28, 2017 (filing 6) denying his motion
for temporary restraining order (filing 2). The Court sees no basis to
reconsider its conclusions that the plaintiff has failed to show irreparable
harm, a likelihood of success on the merits, or that injunctive relief would be
in the public interest. Filing 6 at 2.1
The plaintiff is also particularly advised that, contrary to his apparent
belief, the Court has no authority to initiate or compel a criminal
investigation. See, e.g., United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979)
(whether to prosecute rests in prosecutor's discretion); Parkhurst v. Tabor,
1

The Court also notes that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), a temporary restraining

order may issue only upon certification, in writing, of "any efforts made to give notice" of
the motion "and the reasons why it should not be required." No such certification is present
in this case—in fact, there is no indication that the plaintiff has endeavored to serve
process, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c).

569 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2009) (crime victims lack standing to compel
criminal prosecution); Inmates of Attica Corr. Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d
375, 380 (2d Cir. 1973) (court cannot compel U.S. Attorney to prosecute). Any
criminal investigation or prosecution—with or without possession of the
plaintiff's laptop computer—must be initiated and undertaken by an
appropriate law enforcement agency.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to reconsider (filing
10) is denied.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2017.
BY THE COURT:

John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

-2-