(PC) Kidwell v. Cisneros ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON HARPER, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-0290 JLT SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION OF ) THE COURT’S ORDER DATED MARCH 25, 2022 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 10) 14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 ) 17 Jason Harper initiated this action by filing a complaint on March 10, 2022. (Doc. 1.) After 18 Plaintiff filed his complaint, the Court issued its “First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee 19 Civil Rights Case.” (Doc. 2.) 20 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an “Administrative Notice” in which he asserted the Court 21 inappropriately identified this action as civil rights complaint instead of a criminal complaint. (Doc. 4.) 22 The Court declined to reclassify the matter as a criminal complaint. (Doc. 5.) The Court explained “the 23 penal code is a criminal statute and does not provide for a private right of action against Defendants.” 24 (Id. at 2.) The Court observed that “based on a cursory review of the complaint, Plaintiff is alleging 25 several retaliation (and other related) claims against prison officials, and such claims are appropriately 26 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” (Id. at 2.) 27 Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s order (Doc. 10), which the Court construes as a motion 28 for reconsideration. 1 Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[o]n motion and just terms, 2 the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: 3 (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence ... (3) fraud 4 ...; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; ... or (6) any 5 other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b). Where none of these factors is present the 6 motion is properly denied. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir.1991). The Ninth 7 Circuit explained: “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 8 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 9 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law,” and it “may not be used to raise 10 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 11 the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th 12 Cir.2009) (internal quotations marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). 13 Plaintiff contends the Court misconstrued his complaint because he is not seeking to press 14 charges against the named individuals but instead requesting the District Attorney and Court file 15 charges against the individuals. (Doc. 10.) As previously explained by the Court: “With rare, limited 16 exceptions…, federal law does not allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against 17 another citizen. Criminal actions are initiated by the state, not by private citizens.” (Id. at 1-2, quoting 18 Lipsey v. Reddy, 2017 WL 4811723, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017), report and recommendation 19 adopted, 2017 WL 5070338 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017).) 20 Plaintiff has no constitutional right to have another person criminally prosecuted. See Linda 21 R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in 22 the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”); Johnson v. Craft, 673 F. Supp. 191, 193 (D. Miss. 23 1987) (“The decision to prosecute a particular crime is within the authority of the state, and there 24 appears to be no federal constitutional right to have criminal wrongdoers brought to justice.”); Oliver 25 v. Collings, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990) (a prisoner who complained that a sheriff did not file 26 criminal charges against guards who beat him failed to state an actionable claim); Lewis v. Jindal, 368 27 Fed. Appx. 613, 614 (5th Cir. 2010) (“It is well-settled that the decision whether to file criminal 28 charges against an individual lies within the prosecutor's discretion, and private citizens do not have a 1 || constitutional right to compel criminal prosecution.”). Plaintiff also does not argue that newly 2 || discovered evidence or an intervening change of the law requires reconsideration of the Court’s ordet 3 Plaintiff's objection is lacking any legal ground entitling him to reconsideration. Mere 4 || disagreement with the Court's order is not sufficient to demonstrate that reconsideration is warranted. 5 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's objection, construed as a motion for reconsideration of the March 25, 2022 6 || order regarding case classification (Doc. 10), is DENIED. 7 8 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ April 21, 2022 ( Li pA LU. wan 10 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28