Reed v. Doe

Background

Genevieve Reed filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court had granted that request earlier. Reed’s 265-page complaint invoked federal criminal statutes concerning health-care fraud, bodily injury, obstruction of health-care investigations, falsification of records, solicitation of a violent crime, and rape and sexual assault.

Reed described efforts to file a criminal complaint in the District of Colorado. That court had dismissed her filing because a private citizen lacks the ability to prosecute a criminal action. In this case, Reed alleged that she had been the victim of obstruction and that various government agencies, courts, officials, and others were involved in wrongdoing or conspiracies. She asked to file her criminal complaint and reopen or relate it to another case, and she sought action concerning the alleged conduct.

Legal standards

Because Reed was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That statute requires dismissal of an eligible complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss claims when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear them.

The court said it would read a self-represented litigant’s filing generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make a claim plausible and to satisfy the requirement for a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s reasoning

The court held that Reed lacked standing—the legal ability to bring the claim—to initiate a criminal prosecution. It adopted the same basic reasoning used by the District of Colorado: a private citizen cannot prosecute a criminal case.

The court also understood Reed to be asking it to direct a prosecutor to start criminal proceedings. It ruled that the decision whether to prosecute belongs solely to the prosecutor. Neither Reed nor a court can require prosecutors to bring criminal charges because prosecutors have discretion over whether to do so.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the portion of the complaint seeking to file a criminal action for lack of standing. It dismissed Reed’s claims seeking to have a federal prosecutor file a criminal complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court declined to give Reed permission to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. It dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), denied all pending motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Reed the ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.

Note on the order

The discussion identifies standing and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction as the reasons for the specific dismissals, while the conclusion cites § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not state that the dismissal is with or without prejudice.