Abdullah-Malik v. Bryant et al
ORDER denying 137 Motion for Arrest Warrant. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 11/18/2014.(jpet, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Akeem Alim-Nafis Abdullah-Malik,
Bruce M. Bryant, Sheriff; James F.
Arwood, Jail Administrator; Richard L.
Martin, Jr., Assistant Jail Administrator;
Gary L. Davis, Security Commander;
Sandie Stervul, Dietitian Trinity Food
Services Oldsmar, Florida Contracted
thru York County Detention Facility,
C/A No.: 1:14-109-RBH-SVH
Plaintiff Akeem Alim-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his
constitutional rights while incarcerated at the York County Detention Center. [ECF No.
47]. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kershaw Correctional Institution (“KCI”) in the
custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. This matter comes before the
court on Plaintiff’s motion for an arrest warrant for KCI officer Catherine Amason.
Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to, or a
judicially-cognizable interest in, the criminal prosecution or non-prosecution of another
person or entity. See Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86–87 (1981). “The benefit that a
third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not
trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its
‘substantive’ manifestations.” Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768
(2005). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to an arrest warrant for Amason.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 18, 2014
Columbia, South Carolina
Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge
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?