Hawkins v. Marshall, No. 3:2023cv00656 - Document 6 (E.D. Va. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 10/27/2023. (Attachments: # 1 Hawkins v. Hale, No. 7:05-CV-00217 (W.D. Va. Apr. 13, 2005), # 2 Hawkins v. Cantrell, No. 7:04-CV-00377 (W.D. Va. July 15, 2004), # 3 Hawkins v. Johnson, No 7:04-CV-00360 (W.D. Va. July 12, 2004))(jpow, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hawkins v. Marshall Doc. 6 Att. 1 Case 7:05-cv-00217-GEC-mfu Document 3 Filed 04/13/05 Page 1 of 3 Pageid#: 11 CLbRK’S OP r ;Cu 'j.i3 b o t, COURT AT ROANOKE. VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO UKT APR I 3 2005 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRCpN^HN F. CPRCPaA^ CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION MAURICE HAWKINS, #242361, Plaintiff, V. ) ) ) ) BY; Dl ERK fl Civil Action No. 7:05-CV- (903.1 *7 MEMORANDUM OPINION ) RUTH HALE, Defendant ) ) By: Hon. Gien E. Conrad United States District Judge Plaintiff Maurice Hawkins, a Virginia inmate located at Red Onion State Prison (ROSP) and proceeding pro se, brings this civil irghts action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, with jurisdiction vested under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. Hawkins claims that the state magistrate failed to prosecute correctional officers for attempted murder. This complaint is before the court pursuant to the court’s screening function, as set out in 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because Hawkins has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court must dismiss Hawkins’s complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). In his first claim, Hawkins alleges that the magistrate breached her duty by failing to enforce the law. Specifically, Hawkins alleges that the defendant failed to arrest correctional officers for attempted murder. A “private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Otero v. United States Attorney General. 832 F.2d 141, 141 (11th Cir. 1987) (affirming the dismissal of an action seeking the writ of mandamus to require the defendants to investigate and prosecute a former Florida State Attorney). A federal court cannot compel state prosecutors to commence a prosecution. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility. 477 F.2d 375, 382-383 (2d Cir. 1973); accord Van Sickle v. Holloway. 791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that the federal courts “have no authority to issue [a writ of mandamus] Dockets.Justia.com Case 7:05-cv-00217-GEC-mfu Document 3 Filed 04/13/05 Page 2 of 3 Pageid#: 12 to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.” (Internal quotation marks omitted)). Therefore, Hawkins’s claim for failure to prosecute does not allege a violation of Hawkins’s constitutional rights. In his second claim, Hawkins alleges that the failure to prosecute resulted in correctional officers retaliating against Hawkins. Hawkins alleges that he was served a dirty breakfast tray and then placed on “food loaf’ for five days. Hawkins complains of stomach and back pains, emotional distress, and mental anguish. The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners from cruel and imusual living conditions. Rhodes v. Chapman. 452 U.S. 337 (1981). On the other hand, an inmate is not entitled to relief simply because of exposure to uncomfortable, restrictive, or inconvenient conditions of confinement, for, ”[t]o the extent that such conditions are restrictive or even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Id. at 347. In fact, to state a claim of constitutional significance regarding prison conditions, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show either that he has sustained a serious or significant mental or physical injuiy as a result of the challenged conditions or that the conditions have created an unreasonable risk of serious damage to his future health. Strickler v. Waters. 989 F.2d 1375, 1380-1381 (4th Cir. 1993); Helling v. McKinney. 509 U.S. 25 (1993). Hawkins does not allege a serious or significant mental or physical injury. In addition, the defendant cannot be held accountable for the alleged actions of correctional officers who she exerts no control over. Therefore, this claim is without merit. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), the court may dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Hawkins’s complaint does 2 4 * Case 7:05-cv-00217-GEC-mfu Document 3 Filed 04/13/05 Page 3 of 3 Pageid#: 13 not state a claim for which this court can grant relief. Therefore, this court must dismiss Hawkins’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). ENTER: This l.^~' day of April, 2005. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
