Mark Hilal v. Enrique D. Mendoza, R. Michael Martinez, City of El Paso, Phoenix Security LLC, Redcap Staffing Agency, and Franklin Construction Limited

Summary

The court grants Mark Hilal’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and recommends dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims with prejudice as frivolous. The recommendation rests on the conclusion that crime victims have no constitutionally protected right to a criminal investigation or prosecution. The court also recommends dismissal without prejudice of the remaining state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the federal claims do not provide a jurisdictional anchor.

Holdings

1. The court granted Hilal's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because his income, assets, and financial circumstances showed that he lacked sufficient resources to pay the filing costs.
2. The court concluded that the § 1983 claims were frivolous because a private citizen has no constitutionally protected right to have an alleged wrongdoer criminally investigated or prosecuted.
3. The court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hilal's remaining state-law claims because dismissal of the § 1983 claims left no federal jurisdictional anchor and no alternative basis for federal jurisdiction was alleged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hilal qualified to proceed in forma pauperis based on his financial circumstances.
2. Whether the § 1983 claims were frivolous because the Constitution does not confer a private citizen with a right to have an alleged crime investigated or prosecuted.
3. Whether the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after the federal § 1983 claims were subject to dismissal.

Disposition

other