Phillips v. Elder

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
OCT 2 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
LEE R. PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 97-2094
(D.C. No. CIV 97-193 SC/LFG)
GEORGE P. ELDER; MARILYN S. (D. N.M.)
HUTTON, Assistant U.S. Attorney,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Plaintiff Lee R. Phillips, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order
dismissing her complaint seeking warrants for defendants’ arrest based on their
roles as attorneys for the Air Force and the United States Government in a prior
civil action brought by plaintiff. The district court held that plaintiff lacked
standing to initiate a criminal prosecution against another. We affirm.
We review de novo the district court’s order of dismissal with prejudice for
lack of standing. See United States v. Colorado Supreme Court, 87 F.3d 1161,
1164 (10th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears
the burden to establish standing. See id. Therefore, she must show that (1) she
has suffered an injury in fact, (2) there exists a causal connection between the
injury and defendants’ conduct, and (3) it is likely that the injury will be
redressed by a favorable decision. See Bennett v. Spear, 117 S. Ct. 1154, 1161
(1997).
An “injury in fact” must invade a legally protected interest. See Colorado
Supreme Court, 87 F.3d at 1164-65. Here, plaintiff’s complaint seeking
prosecution of others did not involve a legally protected interest because
“a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
nonprosecution of another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973);
see also Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993)
(holding civil rights plaintiff lacked standing to require disciplinary proceedings
-2-
to be filed against another). Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiff lacks
standing to require defendants’ arrest on criminal charges.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-