Milner v. The State of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11854
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Milner v. New York, Judge McMahon dismissed John Milner’s frivolous suit seeking investigation of his cousin, finding no right to prosecution.
John W. Milner’s action was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free appeal status. The defendants faced no further proceedings in this action based on the dismissal.
What happened
In Milner v. The State of New York, John W. Milner, representing himself, claimed that New York officials violated his constitutional rights by not investigating his cousin for alleged embezzlement. He sought restitution and $500,000.
The court explained that people generally have no constitutional right to have someone else arrested or prosecuted, and private citizens cannot control a prosecutor’s decision to bring criminal charges. Milner’s claims therefore did not state a valid legal claim.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action as frivolous and denied permission to amend because amendment would be futile. The court also warned that future frivolous litigation could lead to a filing restriction and denied fee-free appeal status because any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Milner v. The State of New York · No. 1:19-cv-11854
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
John W. Milner brought the action without a lawyer against the State of New York; Governor Andrew Cuomo; Attorney General Letitia James; Detective John Flood; two unnamed detectives; and Somers Police Chief Michael Driscoll, all in their individual capacities. The opinion states that Milner is a New Jersey resident.
Milner alleged that, in 1997, he notified New York law-enforcement authorities about alleged embezzlement by his cousin, Ann Westerman, but that his requests for an investigation were ignored. He sought restitution for the allegedly misappropriated money and $500,000 in damages. The opinion also states that he had previously brought the same claims against the same defendants in a related proceeding, which the court dismissed as frivolous; an appeal from that earlier proceeding was dismissed.
Legal Standard
The court stated that it may dismiss a complaint as frivolous even when the plaintiff has paid the filing fee. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact, including when it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. The court also explained that it must read filings from people without lawyers liberally, but it may deny amendment when the claim is frivolous on its face or amendment would be futile.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that an individual generally has no interest protected by the Due Process Clause in having another person arrested. It also held that Milner could not initiate his cousin’s arrest or prosecution in federal court because the decision to prosecute belongs to the prosecutor, not to a private citizen or the court. As a result, Milner’s claims seeking prosecution of his cousin, or seeking damages from law-enforcement officials for failing to investigate or prosecute her, failed to state a claim for relief.
The court declined to give Milner permission to amend because the same claims had already been dismissed as frivolous in the earlier related proceeding and amendment would be futile. It warned that further vexatious or frivolous litigation could result in an order barring new actions without prior permission under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.