Vagle v. Bakke

Background

Melissa K. Vagle filed an application to proceed without paying filing fees and submitted a pleading naming several dozen defendants. The pleading listed twelve federal criminal statutes and sought the arrest, trial, and imprisonment of people who had become involved, in some way, in Vagle’s recent state-court divorce and child-custody proceedings. The court found it unclear whether Vagle intended to bring a civil case or initiate criminal proceedings.

Court’s analysis

The court stated that private citizens generally cannot start federal criminal prosecutions. It therefore concluded that, if Vagle intended to initiate criminal proceedings, the pleading was frivolous and could not proceed.

The court also considered the alternative possibility that Vagle intended to bring civil claims. Because she applied to proceed without paying filing fees, the pleading was subject to required screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal if an in forma pauperis pleading—that is, a pleading filed by someone seeking to proceed without paying fees—is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim for relief.

The court found that none of the federal criminal statutes identified by Vagle created a private right of action, meaning they did not authorize a private person to sue under them. Although the pleading occasionally referred to statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that can provide a civil cause of action, the court found that it did not allege enough facts to show that any defendant violated the law. The court noted that no facts were pleaded about most defendants and that the allegations against the others were conclusory and too vague. As an example, the pleading alleged that Brandon Bakke embezzled funds but did not clearly describe the alleged misconduct.

Ruling

The court ordered that the matter be dismissed without prejudice: for lack of standing to the extent Vagle sought to initiate a criminal prosecution, and for failure to state a claim for relief to the extent she brought civil claims. The court denied Vagle’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It also certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.