Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01730/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01730-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1 07CV1730

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIA ROSARIO METCALF,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07CV1730 BTM (WMC)

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

vs.

BONNIE DUMANIS, et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint which she has captioned as a

criminal complaint. According to the title page of the complaint and the civil cover sheet filed

therewith, the complaint is apparently brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act and a number of other federal statutes and international treaties.

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint, finds that it is largely unintelligible.

Her complaint is not in the proper form specified by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which

requires that a pleading contain: “(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which

the court’s jurisdiction depends . . ., (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader

seeks.” The Court is unable to discern the nature of Plaintiff’s claim or any grounds upon

which this Court could grant relief. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s complaint includes no statement

of the grounds upon which this Court’s jurisdiction depends, and her reference to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446 on the civil cover sheet is simply inapplicable because that statute refers to the

removal of an action from State court.

Case 3:07-cv-01730-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 09/27/07 Page 1 of 2
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 07CV1730

Furthermore, Plaintiff has styled her pleading as a “criminal complaint.” Plaintiff is

advised that, to the extent she wishes to bring a criminal action against any Defendant, her

complaint must be dismissed upon this independent ground as well. A private citizen has

no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution; that power is vested exclusively in the

executive branch. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974); Cok v. Cosentino,

876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (stating that only the United States as prosecutor can bring a

criminal complaint under RICO).

Accordingly, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without

prejudice. However, if Plaintiff believes that her allegations can properly be brought in the

form of a civil complaint, she is granted leave to file an amended complaint, which corrects

the deficiencies identified above. Plaintiff is further directed to consult the Local Rules for

this Court and any amended complaint should conform to Civil Local Rule 5.1. The rule

requires that: (1) pleadings be legible; (2) statements be made in numbered paragraphs,

which are limited to a single set of circumstances; and (3) the title page include a brief

designation of the document’s nature, in this case “Amended Complaint.” In addition, Plaintiff

is directed to comply with Civil Local Rule 15.1, which requires that any amended pleading

be “complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.”

Any amended complaint must be filed within 30 days of entry of this order. If

Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within 30 days, or the complaint fails to conform

to the requirements specified above, this case will be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01730-BTM-WMC Document 3 Filed 09/27/07 Page 2 of 2