Opinion
3:21-CV-1443
04-01-2022
ROBERT WILLIAM MAWSON, SR, Plaintiff v. CRAIG S. LECADRE, et al., Defendants
ORDER
Robert D. Mariarni, United States District Judge.
AND NOW, THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022, upon de novo review of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchik's Report & Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 8), Plaintiff's Objections thereto (Doc. 9), and all other relevant documents, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. 9) are OVERRULED.
Here, Plaintiff has sued Craig LeCadre, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, and Pennsylvania State Trooper Wareham. The Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mehalchick's statement that "it is well established that private citizens do not have a judicially protected interest in the criminal prosecution of another." (Doc. 8, at 5) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts have consistently upheld this principal and rejected plaintiffs' attempts to claim constitutional violations of their rights as a result of the failure of police officers or prosecutors to investigate claims or initiate criminal charges. See e.g., Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) ("a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."); McCann v. Borough of Magnolia, 581 Fed.Appx. 125, 126 (3d Cir. 2014) ("Relief may not be granted on McCann's claim that a police officer improperly denied his request to file a criminal complaint and failed to investigate his eviction."); Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007) ("There is no statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation"); Lefebure v. D'Aquilla, 15 F.4th 650, 652 (5th Cir. 2021) ("... each of us has a legal interest in how we are treated by law enforcement - but not a legally cognizable interest in how others are treated by law enforcement. So people accused of a crime have an obvious interest in being treated fairly by prosecutors. And victims of crime have a strong interest in their own physical safety and protection. But victims do not have standing based on whether other people -including their perpetrators - are investigated or prosecuted. Every court to have addressed this question prior to this case agrees that a crime victim may not challenge a prosecutor's failure to investigate or prosecute her perpetrator.") (emphasis in original).
2. The R&R (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED for the reasons set forth therein.
3. Plaintiff's "Motion to Make a Ruling" (Doc. 10) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
4. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED without leave to amend.