Riddle v. Riddle

Filing 7

ORDER: Accordingly, Riddle has not provided a legitimate basis for reconsideration of the order denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion to reconsider is therefore DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 4/30/13. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(tmw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TIMOTHY GLENN RIDDLE,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES WALLACE RIDDLE,
Defendant.

Case No. 3:13-cv-327
Judge Sharp

ORDER
The Court previously denied plaintiff Timothy Glenn Riddle’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, and notified the plaintiff that he did not have standing to bring a criminal action in this Court.
(ECF No. 3 (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973), and Sefa v. Kentucky, No. 12–
5455, 2013 WL 69337, at *2 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2013)).
The plaintiff has now faxed a notice to the Court which the Court construes as a motion to
reconsider. (ECF No. 6.) The plaintiff again asserts that because he is in the posture of an indictor, and
he brings this suit as a private criminal prosecution, he has no obligation to pay the $350.00 civil filing fee.
He insists that because he is bringing this prosecution as a public service, no filing fee should be
charged.
The document, insofar as it is construed as a motion to reconsider, is DENIED. As the Court
noted in the original order denying the plaintiff’s application to proceed as a pauper, the plaintiff, as a
private citizen, has no authority to institute a federal criminal prosecution. Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1,
2 (1st Cir.1989). Accord Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir. 2000); Doyle v. Okla. Bar. Ass’n,
998 F.2d 1559, 1567 (10th Cir. 1993). See also Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d
81, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our federal system crimes
are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in Anglo-American
jurisdictions by private complaints.”); Winslow v. Romer, 759 F. Supp. 670, 674 (D. Colo. 1991)
(“[C]riminal statutes can only be enforced by the proper authorities of the United States Government and
a private party has no right to enforce these sanctions.” (citations omitted)). The law in this area is crystal

2
clear: “[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
another.” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986) (quoting Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614,
619 (1973)). In short, Riddle, a private citizen, has no standing to initiate a federal criminal prosecution
as a private “indictor.”
Accordingly, Riddle has not provided a legitimate basis for reconsideration of the order denying
his application to proceed in forma pauperis. The motion to reconsider is therefore DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.

Kevin H. Sharp
United States District Judge