Opinion
CASE NO. 12-cv-642 - BEN (KSC)
05-21-2012
MICHAEL L. STEWART; and DOES 1-143, Plaintiffs, v. SAINT VINCENT DE PAUL; and STUDIO 15, Defendants.
ORDER:
(1) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION FOR LODGMENT OF DVD,
[Doc. No. 25];
(2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO FILE IN BOTH CASES,
TO ENFORCE, TO AMEND, AND
FOR HEARING DATE, [Doc. No. 27];
(3) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MOTION TO FILE NAMES OF
PLAINTIFFS, [Doc. No. 29]; and
(4) GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
EXHIBIT B, [Doc. No. 16].
Plaintiff Michael L. Stewart, proceeding pro se, has filed a purported class action complaint alleging a violation of civil rights as a result of Defendants' alleged policy prohibiting him and other persons with mental, physical, or emotional disabilities, some of whom are also "low income" or homeless, from assembling on a public sidewalk. The Court initially dismissed the case for failure to pay the filing fee. On May 8, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff's renewed request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered that the case be re-opened. The Court also found that Plaintiff was entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. Currently before the Court are the following motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) motion for lodgment of DVD; (2) motion to file in both cases, to enforce, to amend, and for hearing date; (3) motion to file names of additional plaintiffs; and (4) motion to file Exhibit B.
The Court first addresses Plaintiff's motion to file in both cases, to enforce, to amend, and for hearing date. This motion is unclear as to the specific relief requested. First, Plaintiff appears to ask the Court to reinstate Plaintiff's prior motion for an injunction and motion to name Plaintiffs in this class action. [See Doc. Nos. 4, 6.] The Court previously denied these motions (as well as several others) as moot in light of the Court's initial dismissal of the case. [See Doc. No. 17.] If Plaintiff wishes for these (and any other) prior motions to be considered, he should re-file them with the Court. Prior to filing any of the motions, Plaintiff should call the Court to obtain a hearing date. Second, Plaintiff's motion appears to ask the Court to stay these proceedings, to commence criminal proceedings against Defendants, and to consolidate the two sets of proceedings. The Court, however, does not have the authority to commence criminal proceedings against Defendants. See Matthews v. Villella, 381 Fed. App'x 137, 140 (3d Cir. 2010) (agreeing with the district court that plaintiff's request for criminal charges to be brought against the defendants was an improper request for relief); Ellen v. Stamm, 951 F.2d 359, 1991 WL 270788, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 19, 1991) (unpublished opinion) ("It is well established that private citizens can neither bring a direct criminal action against another person nor can they petition the federal courts to compel the criminal prosecution of another person."). The decision to institute criminal proceedings lies within the discretion of the proper state or federal prosecuting authority. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (observing that the executive branch has "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case"); Mercer v. Lexington Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov., 52 F.3d 325,1995 WL 222178, at *1 (6th Cir. Apr. 13, 1995) (unpublished opinion) ("[A]uthority to initiate a criminal complaint rests exclusively with state and federal prosecutors."). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff asks the Court to commence criminal proceedings against Defendants and to stay this case while those proceedings are being instituted, that part of Plaintiff s motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff's other motion seeks to add names of plaintiffs to the complaint and in support of his motion for injunction (which Plaintiff has not yet re-filed). It is unclear, however, on what basis Plaintiff seeks to add these names and whether these individuals are being added as individual plaintiffs or class members. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking leave to lodge with the Court two DVDs in support of his motions for injunction, joinder, and criminal proceedings. Because Plaintiff's motion for injunction has not been re-filled yet, and because his other motions are denied, the Court also DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motion to lodge the DVDs.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to lodge the DVDs as evidence, the Court notes that the videos contained on the DVDs are cumulative of the factual allegations set forth in the Complaint.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff previously filed a motion to file Exhibit B in support of his complaint and various motions. [See Doc. No. 16.] The Court has not previously ruled on this motion. Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to file Plaintiff's Exhibit B as supplementation to Plaintiff's Complaint. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(d).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff's motion to file in both cases, to enforce, to amend, and for hearing date is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 27.] The Court does not have the authority to commence criminal proceedings against Defendants. To the extent Plaintiff seeks to reinstate his prior motions that were previously denied as moot, he should re-file those motions with the Court. Prior to filing any of the motions, Plaintiff should call the Court to obtain a hearing date. Finally, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to file in both civil cases, the Court notes that Plaintiff's other case (Case No. 12-cv-597) was dismissed on April 5, 2012 for failure to pay the filing fee. Since then, Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee nor submitted a renewed application seeking to proceed in forma pauperis in that case.
Plaintiff's motion to file names of additional plaintiffs in support of his complaint and various motions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 29]
The motion for lodgment of DVDs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. No. 25.]
Plaintiff's motion to file Exhibit B in support of his Complaint is GRANTED. [Doc. No. 16.] The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to file Plaintiff's Exhibit B on the docket.
IT IS SQ ORDERED.
_______________
Honorable Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge