Simpson v. Supreme Court Of Virginia et al, No. 3:2018cv00547 - Document 16 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 03/18/2019. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Simpson v. Supreme Court Of Virginia et al Doc. 16 n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division I E MAR I 8 2019 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND. VA JAMES SIMPSON, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:18CV547 SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA,et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION James Simpson, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action. Here, in his initial pleading to this Court titled, "Criminal Complaint," Plaintiff requests that this Court "issue an arrest warrant" for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, Donald W. Lemons. (ECF No. 1, at 1.) Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act("PLRA") this Court must dismiss any action filed by an individual proceeding informapauperis ifthe Court determines the action "is fiivolous or malicious." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The first standard includes claims based upon "an indisputably meritless legal theory," or claims where the "factual contentions are clearly baseless." Clay v. Yates, 809 F. Supp. 417, 427 (E.D. Va. 1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). It is both unnecessary and inappropriate to engage in an extended discussion of the utter lack of merit of Simpson's action. See Cochran v. Morris, 12> F.3d 1310, 1315 (4th Cir. 1996)(emphasizing that "abbreviated treatment" is consistent with Congress's vision for the disposition of frivolous or "insubstantial claims"(citing iVeitefev. Williams, A9Q\i.S. 319,324(1989))). "[T]he Court cannot initiate criminal or regulatory investigations ofany defendant. Rather,authority to initiate criminal complaints rests exclusively with state and federal prosecutors." Barron v. Katz, No. 6:17—195— KKC,2017 WL 3431397, at =^1 (E.D. Ky. Aug. 9,2017)(citing Sahagian v. Dickey,646 F. Supp. Dockets.Justia.com 1502, 1506 (W.D. Wis. 1986)). Furthermore, Simpson as "a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the [criminal] prosecution or nonprosecution of another." Linda R.S. v. Richard a,410 U.S. 614,619(1973); see Lopez v. Robinson,914 F.2d 486,494(4th Cir. 1990) ("No citizen has an enforceable right to institute a criminal prosecution."). Accordingly,the action will be DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. Simpson's outstanding motions(EOF Nos. 12, 13) will be DENIED. The Clerk will be DIRECTED to note the disposition of the action for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Date: Richmond, Virginia John A.Gibney, Jr. United States Distriistdiud^e
]]>
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.
