Opinion
Case No. 3:13cv387-LC-CJK
11-01-2016
CHARLES BERNARD ROBINSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. D. LARSON, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on plaintiff's "Emergency Injunction Order." (Doc. 132). Plaintiff asserts 4 employees of the Reception and Medical Center (Sergeant Dicks, Officer Padgett, Officer Tucker, and Ms. Shields) battered and sexually assaulted him on October 16, 2016. Plaintiff claims the "institution isn't doing anything about this matter[.]" Plaintiff, therefore, requests "an order to have a 'Sheriff Department' and 'Central Office Inspector' come interview plaintiff so that 'sexual assault' charges could be filed against stated staff."
Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief should be denied because "a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another." Otero v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 832 F.2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S. Ct. 1146, 35 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1973)); see also United States v. Smith, 231 F.3d 800, 807 (11th Cir. 2000) (noting "[t]he decision as to which crimes and criminals to prosecute is entrusted by the Constitution not to the judiciary, but to the executive who is charged with seeing that laws are enforced"); Nicholas v. Heffner, 228 F. App'x 139, 141 (3d Cir. 2007) ("[T]he District Court lacks authority to order a federal investigation and prosecution of the defendants or the termination of their employment."). Furthermore, plaintiff is not seeking injunctive relief from the defendants in this action. See In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Labs., 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (finding court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue preliminary or permanent injunction against nonparty).
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
That plaintiff's "Emergency Injunction Order" (doc. 132) be DENIED.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 1st day of November, 2016.
/s/ Charles J . Kahn, Jr.
CHARLES J. KAHN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the Magistrate Judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.