Helterbran v. Targonski et al
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 5/12/15. (bs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALEXANDER HELTERBRAN, JR.,
Plaintiff
:
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14-2338
:
ANN TARGONSKI, ANTHONY J.
ROSINI, MICHAEL P. TOOMEY,
and ROBERT JOHN,
Defendants
:
(JUDGE MANNION)
:
:
:
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E.
Schwab, which recommends that the plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed with
prejudice. (Doc. 6). The plaintiff has filed objections to Judge Schwab’s report.
(Doc. 7). Based upon the court’s review of the record, including the plaintiff’s
complaint, Judge Schwab’s report and recommendation, and the plaintiff’s
objections thereto, the report of Judge Schwab will be adopted, the plaintiff’s
objections overruled, and the complaint dismissed with prejudice.
By way of relevant background, the plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the
instant one-count complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, in which he alleges
that, on or about July 20, 2013, he contacted defendant John, the Chief of
Police for Zerbe Township, Pennsylvania, regarding items allegedly stolen
from him by an individual named William Orme. (Doc. 1). According to the
plaintiff, defendant John took no action and, as a result, the plaintiff filed a
private criminal complaint. The plaintiff alleges that defendant John informed
him that defendant Toomey, an Assistant District Attorney in Northumberland
County, declined to prosecute the matter because it was deemed a civil not
criminal matter. The plaintiff alleges that Mr. Orme is represented by the son
of the President Judge in Northumberland County.
Based upon the above, the plaintiff alleges that defendant John violated
his constitutional rights by failing to perform a complete investigation into his
complaint. He further alleges that defendants Toomey, Rosini, the former
Chief District Attorney in Northumberland County, and Targonski, the current
Chief District Attorney in Northumberland County, have violated his rights “by
their continued actions and inactions.” The plaintiff is seeking declaratory
relief, as well as compensatory damages.
In giving the plaintiff’s pro se complaint preliminary consideration
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), Judge Schwab
determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. In doing so, Judge Schwab found that the plaintiff’s entire complaint
relies on the flawed premise that the plaintiff has a constitutional right or
2
interest in the prosecution or investigation of others. Judge Schwab found that
he does not, and to allow him to file an amended complaint would be futile.
As such, Judge Schwab recommends that the plaintiff’s complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiff has filed objections to Judge Schwab’s report arguing that
the report essentially means that it is not illegal for an individual to steal
property from those who entrust the individual with its care. Moreover, the
plaintiff argues that adopting the report would send a signal to others that it
is not a crime to remove the property of another and covert the property for
one’s own use. The plaintiff finally argues that he is a senior citizen who is
entitled to increased protection from abuse and criminal actions against him.
When objections are timely filed to the report and recommendation of
a magistrate judge, the district court must review de novo those portions of
the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011). Although the standard is de novo,
the extent of review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge,
and the court may rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the
extent it deems proper. Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa.
2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
3
For those sections of the report and recommendation to which no
objection is made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also
Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.
2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)
(explaining judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not,
the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Here, Judge Schwab is correct that “there is no constitutional right to
a[n] investigation or a prosecution.” Sanders v. Downs, 420 Fed.App’x.175,
180 (3rd Cir. 2011) (citing Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir.
2007); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973)) (observing that “a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
non-prosecution of another.”). Thus, the plaintiff’s §1983 claims fail against
the defendants as a matter of law because the plaintiff cannot establish a
deprivation of a federally protected right in which he had a cognizable
4
interest.” See Sanders, 420 Fed.App’x. at 180. Despite the plaintiff’s
argument in his objections to the contrary, the instant decision does not
decriminalize theft, but simply follows the law which provides that the plaintiff
does not have a federal constitutional right or interest in having Mr. Orme
prosecuted. Thus, the report of Judge Schwab will be adopted and the
plaintiff’s objections overruled in this respect.1
On the basis of the foregoing, an appropriate order shall issue.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Date: May 12, 2015
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2014 MEMORANDA\14-2338-01.wpd
1
In addition to the above, with respect to the plaintiff’s request for
monetary damages, the court notes that defendants Rosini, Targonski and
Toomey all enjoy prosecutorial immunity. Prosecutors are entitled to absolute
immunity when performing their official duties, including the decision to
prosecute or not prosecute an individual. See Stankowski v. Farley, 487
F.Supp.2d 543 (M.D.Pa. 2007); Radocesky v. Munley, 247 Fed.App’x. 363,
365 (3d Cir. 2007).
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?