Havea v. C.R. England

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Sosaia Havea’s amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a claim and lack of standing to assert a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot and denied Havea’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and ordered the action closed.

Holdings

1. A private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another and cannot initiate a federal criminal proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 242; therefore, the amended complaint failed to state a cognizable claim.
2. The amended complaint was subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because it failed to state a claim and lacked a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.
3. Dismissal without further leave to amend was proper because the plaintiff had already been given an opportunity to address the deficiencies identified in the prior screening order and the amended complaint remained deficient.
4. The plaintiff was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because the identified appeal had no arguable basis in fact or law and was therefore frivolous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint stated a cognizable claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
2. Whether the plaintiff had standing or otherwise established subject matter jurisdiction to pursue the asserted claims.
3. Whether the amended complaint should be dismissed without further leave to amend after the plaintiff had already been given an opportunity to cure identified deficiencies.
4. Whether the defendant's motion to dismiss should be denied as moot after dismissal of the amended complaint.
5. Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and whether the appeal should be certified as not taken in good faith.

Disposition

dismissed