Opinion
2:24-cv-00408-TL
09-16-2024
JANET SHELLMAN SHERMAN, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES A KRUSE et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Tana Lin United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Janet Shellman Sherman's Motion for Discovery. Dkt. No. 65. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff requests that the Court compel the federal government to undertake two actions. First, Plaintiff seeks to “rectify the absence of a State Investigation . . . that should have directly examined Plaintiff's car at the scene of Defendant Kruse's Restaurant.” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not explain what, specifically, she means by “rectify.” Plaintiff's motion, however, suggests that Washington state authorities did not perform an adequate investigation into an alleged motor vehicle accident. See id.; see also Dkt. No. 58 at 5-6. In Washington, motor vehicle accidents are properly investigated by law enforcement agencies. See generally RCW 46.52. By implication, then, it appears that Plaintiff's motion is requesting that the Court compel federal law enforcement do what state law enforcement allegedly did not. Second, Plaintiff seeks to have the Federal Bureau of Investigation “investigate an Ongoing surveillance crime in her home.” Dkt. No. 65 at 2.
Federal courts are not authorized to conduct or compel law enforcement investigations. See, e.g., Bullock v. Sheela, No. 1:14-cv-00092-DAD-EPG-PC, 2018 WL 1110778, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2018) (citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607 (1985)). Under the doctrine of separation of powers, such work is reserved to the Executive Branch of the federal government. Id. Here, Plaintiff's motion requests that the Court instigate two separate law enforcement investigations. This is beyond the Court's purview, and the Court does not have the authority to compel them.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. No. 65).