Carter v. City of Columbus et al

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Complaint and Order GRANTING MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Cardional Anna Vines Carter. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 2/4/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 1/17/13. (jcw1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

CARDIANAL ANNA VINES CARTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:13-cv-0039
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King

COLUMBUS STATE OHIO, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER AND
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

Doc. No. 1. Upon consideration, the Court concludes

that the motion is meritorious and it is therefore GRANTED.
Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to prosecute her action without
prepayment of fees or costs and judicial officers who render service
in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid.
However, having performed the initial screen of the Complaint
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court concludes that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Although the Complaint is difficult to decipher, it appears that
plaintiff intends to name as defendants the State of Ohio, the Mayor
of the City of Columbus [“Marro Comons”], the Governor of the State of

Ohio [“Gov Casas”], the Columbus Police Department and “Record
Officer,” the Ohio Ethics Commission and one Seara Marlone Giffens.
The Complaint appears to allege that plaintiff has filed a number of
police reports against Ms. Giffens but no action has been taken
against her.

Plaintiff asks that her medical bills be paid and that

she be awarded $2 million;

she also seeks the “Death Penalty For all

who Had Their hand in it.”

Complaint.

A private citizen has no “judicially cognizable interest in the
prosecution or non-prosecution of another.”
410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973).

Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

See also Leake v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83,

86-87 (1981); Peek v. Mitchell, 419 F.2d 575 (6th Cir. 1970); Bond v.
Thornburgh, 891 F.2d 289 (Table), 1989 WL 149981 (6th Cir. December
12, 1989).

Moreover, governmental officials ordinarily have no

constitutional duty to protect a citizen by arresting another citizen.
Deshaney v. Winnebago Cy. Dept. of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189
(1989);

Nobles v. Brown, 985 F.2dd 235 (6th Cir. 1992).

The

Complaint therefore fails to state a claim for relief under federal
law.

Moreover, because the case does not present a claim between

persons of diverse citizenship, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the action be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report
and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file
and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

2

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part
thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto.
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

28

Response to objections must

be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy
thereof.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the
decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of
Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States
v. Walters,

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

January 17, 2013
(Date)

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge