Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02981/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02981-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re

CHARLES FORDJOUR,

Plaintiff.

_____________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-2981 MMC (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION

FOR EMERGENCY TRANSFER

(Docket Nos. 5, 6)

On June 7, 2007, plaintiff, a California prisoner then incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison (“SQSP”) and proceeding pro se, instituted the above-titled civil rights action by filing

a “Criminal Complaint” in which he asked the Court to “refer his petition to United States

Attorney’s Office to file a criminal complaint” against prison officials at SQSP. 

On June 14, 2007, the Court dismissed the action for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief, finding as follows: 

Neither the statutes cited by plaintiff, nor any authority of which this

Court is aware, provides for this Court to “refer” any matter to the United

States Attorney for prosecution. Whether to prosecute and what criminal

charges to file or bring are decisions that rest in the prosecutor’s, not the

court’s, discretion. United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). The

statutes on which plaintiff first relies, 42 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, pertain to the

United States Department of Health and Human Services and do not speak to a

district court’s authority to “refer” a matter to federal prosecutors. Plaintiff

also cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242; there are no such sections in the United

States Code. To whatever extent plaintiff means to cite to 18 U.S.C. §§ 241

and 242, two provisions of the criminal code prohibiting the violation of an

individual’s civil rights, such statutes do not provide a private cause of action

or basis for civil liability, see, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th

Cir. 1980) (holding 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 provide no private right of action

and cannot form basis for civil suit), nor do they authorize the referral of a

matter to federal prosecutors for criminal prosecution. 

(Order of Dismissal, filed June 14, 2007, at 1-2.) The Court dismissed the action without

prejudice to plaintiff’s reporting his concerns to any state or federal law enforcement agency

Case 3:07-cv-02981-MMC Document 13 Filed 01/17/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

or office. (Id. at 2.) 

On June 22, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and to set aside the

Court’s order of dismissal. Plaintiff filed his motion within ten days of the entry of

judgment; the Court thus construes the motion as a timely motion for reconsideration under

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See American Ironworks & Erectors,

Inc. v. North American Construction Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding

motion for reconsideration is treated as Rule 59(e) motion if filed within ten days of entry of

judgment; if not so filed, motion is treated as Rule 60(b) motion). A motion to alter or

amend judgment under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted, absent highly unusual

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,

committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the law.” McDowell v.

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc) (internal quotation and citation

omitted).

Plaintiff does not argue that newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in

the law requires the complaint to be reinstated. His claim is that the Court erred when it

dismissed the complaint, because (1) he is in imminent danger of being killed by prison

officials at SQSP, and (2) other federal district courts have referred civil cases to the United

States Attorney for criminal prosecution. Plaintiff’s claim of error is without merit. The

allegations and statutory citations in plaintiff’s complaint, even when liberally construed, did

not support the proposition that a district court has the authority to refer matters to federal

prosecutors for criminal prosecution. The motion for reconsideration similarly lacks such

support; in said motion plaintiff merely reiterates his contention that prison officials are

trying to kill him, and alleges, without citation to any case name or number or other legal

authority, that other federal district courts have made the type of referral he seeks. In

addition, even if there were legal grounds to support plaintiff’s contentions, his request for a

referral to the United States Attorney would now be moot. Since September 2007, plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-02981-MMC Document 13 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

has been filing letters in this case that bear a return address of Avenal State Prison; thus,

plaintiff’s claim that he is in imminent danger of being killed by prison officials at SQSP is

no longer viable. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration is

hereby DENIED. (Docket No. 5.)

On June 26, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency transfer to federal

custody, based on his claim that prison officials at SQSP are trying to kill him. Because, as

noted, plaintiff is no longer incarcerated at SQSP, the motion is hereby DENIED as moot. 

(Docket No. 6.) 

This order terminates Docket Nos. 5 and 6.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 17, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02981-MMC Document 13 Filed 01/17/08 Page 3 of 3