Havea v. C.R. England

Background

Sosaia Havea, representing herself, filed a complaint and received permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court previously dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed Havea to file an amended complaint. Havea filed the first amended complaint on June 16, 2025. C.R. England then filed a motion to dismiss.

Amended-Complaint Screening

The court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which requires screening of a case filed without payment of the filing fee. The amended complaint asserted a single claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242. The court explained that Section 242 is a criminal statute and that a private citizen has no legally recognized right to prosecute or decline to prosecute another person. Federal criminal proceedings are initiated by the government, not by private citizens. The court therefore concluded that Havea lacked standing to bring the claim and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim.

The court also stated that the amended complaint still failed to establish a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Because Havea had already been given an opportunity to correct the problems identified in the earlier screening order, the court dismissed the amended complaint without leave to amend. The court did not decide whether Havea’s allegation about her mental state could toll the statute of limitations.

Motions and Appeal

The court denied C.R. England’s motion to dismiss as moot because the court had already dismissed the amended complaint. Havea separately sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in her appeal. The court denied that motion. It found the appeal frivolous because Havea identified no appealable order or judgment: her notice of appeal listed June 16, 2025, although the court issued no order or judgment on that date, and it identified a different case number in which the court was not presiding.

The court further stated that Havea’s attempted constitutional and criminal claims were unavailable to a private citizen against C.R. England, which the opinion described as a private company. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order, or from the earlier screening order, would not be taken in good faith. Judge Donna M. Ryu ordered the Clerk of Court to close the action.

Result