Prouty v. Kosloski

Background

Darrell D. Prouty filed a complaint against Andrea Marlee Kosloski, Sara Kulas, and Dana Osbourne. The opinion states that Prouty is a client of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and that the defendants are employees of that program. Prouty alleged that the defendants had engaged in sexual relationships with other Minnesota Sex Offender Program clients. He sought to have the defendants criminally prosecuted under state law.

Prouty also filed applications to proceed without paying the filing fee, a procedure commonly called proceeding "in forma pauperis."

Jurisdiction and standing

The court held that private citizens do not have standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a personal injury that the court can address—to enforce criminal statutes or ask a court to initiate a criminal prosecution against someone else. Because criminal prosecution was the only relief Prouty requested, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the case.

The court stated that it would lack jurisdiction even if the complaint were understood as seeking some relief other than criminal prosecution. The complaint did not include the required statement explaining the basis for the court’s jurisdiction. The court found that federal-question jurisdiction did not apply because Prouty sought relief only under state law. It also found that diversity jurisdiction did not apply because Prouty did not allege that the parties were citizens of different states. The court concluded that no other federal jurisdiction provision plainly applied.

The court further determined that Prouty lacked constitutional standing. Although he alleged that other Minnesota Sex Offender Program clients had been injured, he did not allege that he had suffered, or was in imminent danger of suffering, a concrete and particularized harm. The court stated that he appeared to be attempting to pursue claims on behalf of those other clients.

Disposition

The court dismissed Prouty’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It denied as moot Prouty’s applications to proceed without paying the filing fee. The order entered judgment accordingly.