Cruise v. Byrd

Filing 9

OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/30/2015. (tvt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
MARK LEE CRUISE,
Plaintiff,
v.
C/O BYRD,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 7:14CV00625
OPINION
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Mark Lee Cruise, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Mark Lee Cruise, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this
civil action, alleging that Defendant Byrd, an officer at the New River Valley
Regional Jail (“the jail”), violated his rights by holding his mail overnight. After
review of Cruise’s submissions, however, I find that this case must be summarily
dismissed.
Cruise has affixed his allegations to a Virginia criminal complaint form.
The form states that on October 21, 2014, while Byrd was passing out inmates’
incoming mail, someone called him a crude name. Byrd stopped the distribution
and returned to the unit to complete the distribution after the inmates were locked
down for the night. When Bryd came to Cruise’s cell, he asked who was on the
top bunk, but Cruise did not answer. Byrd called Cruise a “smart ass” and threw

two letters for Cruise on the table outside the cell. Cruise sues Byrd for failing to
deliver his United States mail within 24 hours of its receipt at the jail.1
I must dismiss any action or claim filed by a prisoner against a governmental
entity or officer if I determine that the action is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
Private citizens, like Cruise, cannot bring a direct criminal action against another
person or petition a federal court to compel the criminal prosecution of another
person. See Linda R. S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (finding “a
private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
nonprosecution of another”). Therefore, to the extent that Cruise brings this action
with the intent to instigate criminal charges against Byrd for delaying his mail, his
claim has no basis in fact or law.
Liberally construed, Cruise’s complaint also asserts that Byrd’s actions
caused some constitutional injury. I also find no actionable claim here. An
occasional, short-term delay of prison mail such as Cruise alleges simply does not
state any deprivation of constitutional proportions. See, e.g., Pearson v. Simms,
345 F. Supp. 2d 515, 519 (D. Md. 2003), aff’d, 88 F. App’x 639 (4th Cir. 2004)

1

When Cruise filed grievances and appeals about Byrd’s conduct, officials stated
that Byrd had rightfully delayed mail delivery because the inmates were not following
proper procedure.
-2-

(unpublished). Therefore, I will summarily dismiss Cruise’s federal claims in this
action under § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous.
To the extent that Cruise may be alleging violation of state law or prison
regulations, such allegations do not provide a basis for constitutional claims under
42 U.S.C. § 1983. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 392 (4th Cir.
1990). I decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over such state law claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and will dismiss them without prejudice.
A separate Order will be entered herewith.
DATED: January 30, 2015
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge

-3-