Grimaldi v. Unted States Department of Justice
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10001
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Grimaldi v. Department of Justice, Judge McMahon dismissed Grimaldi’s petition seeking Trump’s arrest because Grimaldi lacked standing.
Aniello Grimaldi’s petition was dismissed. The United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Donald Trump were the defendants named in the petition.
What happened
In Grimaldi v. United States Department of Justice, Aniello Grimaldi, representing himself, asked the court to order the arrest of Donald Trump for alleged crimes. Grimaldi relied on statements and criminal payments involving Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
The court said a private person cannot initiate an arrest or prosecution or direct prosecutors to bring criminal charges. Because Grimaldi had no legal standing to challenge the defendants’ decision not to arrest Trump, the court lacked authority to hear the petition.
Judge McMahon dismissed the petition for lack of standing and declined to allow Grimaldi to amend it because the problem could not be fixed by amendment. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Grimaldi v. Unted States Department of Justice · No. 1:19-cv-10001
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 5, 2019
Background
Aniello Grimaldi, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, meaning a request for a court order requiring an official to take a specified action. He sought an order requiring President Donald Trump’s arrest for alleged crimes. Grimaldi challenged what he described as the refusal of the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to arrest Trump for crimes allegedly committed before Trump became president.
Grimaldi referred to statements by Michael Cohen in a prior criminal case and alleged that Cohen had admitted participating in crimes involving Trump. Grimaldi asked that his petition be referred to the judge who presided over Cohen’s criminal case. The court had previously allowed Grimaldi to proceed without prepaying court fees.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed by people who have been allowed to proceed without prepaying fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also said it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally.
The court held that Grimaldi could not initiate the arrest or prosecution of another person. It explained that the decision whether to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor, and that prosecutors have discretion to bring criminal cases without control or interference from a private citizen or the court.
The court concluded that Grimaldi lacked standing, meaning a sufficient legal connection to challenge the defendants’ conduct. Without standing, a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, or legal authority to hear the case. The court also declined to give Grimaldi permission to amend because it found that an amendment could not cure the defect.
Disposition
The court dismissed Grimaldi’s petition for a writ of mandamus for lack of standing. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.