Vagle v. Kaminsky

Background

Melissa Vagle filed the complaint for herself, her child, identified by the court as “A.M.V.,” and Sarah Monley. The opinion says that Monley’s relationship to Vagle is unknown. Vagle applied to proceed without paying the filing fee, but Monley did not apply for that status or pay the fee after the Clerk of Court warned her that she could be dismissed.

The complaint named numerous defendants. As best the court could determine, Vagle alleged that her son was at risk of physical harm while in the custody of Vagle’s former spouse and the former spouse’s current wife. Vagle also alleged that she had been unlawfully arrested and subjected to excessive force during an arrest. She sought “507,720,000 payable in only gold and silver.” The complaint also appeared to challenge ongoing state criminal proceedings against Vagle and sought prosecution of Vagle’s former spouse and his current wife under federal criminal statutes.

Claims involving Monley and A.M.V.

The court dismissed Monley from the action for failure to prosecute because she neither applied to proceed without paying the filing fee nor paid the filing fee. The court also explained that only Vagle signed the complaint, and a person who is not an attorney cannot prosecute claims for another person in federal court. For the same reason, Vagle could not represent Monley. The court further held that Vagle could not represent A.M.V. in federal court, and claims purporting to be brought on A.M.V.’s behalf were dismissed without prejudice.

Screening of Vagle’s claims

The court reviewed Vagle’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of a case brought by a person seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court accepted factual allegations as true for purposes of review, but explained that a complaint must include enough facts to make a claim plausible and must identify why each defendant is being sued.

The court held that allegations seeking to enjoin or otherwise challenge Vagle’s ongoing state criminal proceedings were barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. That doctrine generally prevents a federal court from considering claims that would interfere with an ongoing state criminal case. The court noted that an excessive-force claim could be separate from the legality of the state prosecution, but found that Vagle did not identify which of the many defendants allegedly participated in the arrests. The court explained that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 requires proof that the specific defendant acted unlawfully and that the complaint must allege a causal connection and direct responsibility.

The court also held that private citizens generally cannot initiate federal criminal prosecutions and cannot seek relief under criminal statutes that do not create a private right to sue. It concluded that Vagle had failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Rulings

The court dismissed the matter without prejudice under § 1915(e)(2)(B). It denied Melissa Vagle’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee and denied her motion to consolidate the action with another case, which Vagle did not identify. The court certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith and therefore Vagle would not be allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. Judge Jerry W. Blackwell signed the order.