C L D - 176 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 10- 1300

___________ T E R R Y F A IS O N W IL L IA M S (on b eh alf o f L o u is T . F aiso n , Jr. , d ec ea sed );

VET A BEL L F AI S ON; LOUI S T. F AI S ON, S R. v. U . S . P E N ITE N T IA R Y L E W ISB U R G , P A , m edicalst aff an d g uards;

UN I ON CO UN TY C OR ON ER T e rryF a is o n W illia m s ; L o u is T . F a is o n , S r.,

A p p e llan ts

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it edS tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi lN o. 09- cv- 01715) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o rab le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir dC ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n dI.O .P . 1 0 .6

A pr i l22, 2010 B efore: B A R R Y , F ISH E R andA L D ISE R T , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: A pr i l28, 2010 )

_________ OP INI ON

_________A l though V et a B el l Fai s on and Loui s T . Fai s on, Sr . , w er e al s o l i s t ed as pl ai nt i ffs 1 o n th e c o m p lain t, th o se in d iv idu a ls d idn o t sig n th e c o m p lain t o r su b m it m o tio n s to p ro c e e dinf

o rm ap aup e ris. T h e re f

o re , the D istric t C o u rt d e e m e dW ill iam s th e so le pl ai nt i ff. A l though L oui s T . Fai s on has s i gned the not i ce of appea l , he does not c h a l l e n g e h i s d i s mi s s a l a s p l a i n t i f f b e l o w. T he di s m i s s alw as w i thoutpr ej udi ce s o thatW i l l i ams coul d s eek r econs i der at i on 2 w ith in 1 4 d ay s if sh e w as a b le t o estab li sh that sh e w as th e a d m inistratri x o f h er b roth er’s e s ta te . B e c au s e W illia m s d idn o t s e e kre c o n s id e ra tio n , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r i s f in a l. See Shapi r o v. U J B Fi nanci alC orp. , 964 F. 2d 272 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( aft er30- dayper i od had pas s ed i n w hi ch pl ai nt i ff w as gi ven l eave t o amend com pl ai nt , or derhad ef fec tof d ism issi n g co m p lai n t w ith p rejud ice). 2 P E R C UR I AM T erryFai s on W i l l i ams fi l ed a c i vi lr i ght s compl ai nti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia, a lleg in g th a t in a d e qu a te m e d ica l ca re led to th e a lleg e d ly“ w ro n g f

u l d e a th ” o f

b ro th e r, L o u is T . F a iso n , w h ile h e w a s in c a rc e ra ted in U SP-Lew i s bur g. She named as defe ndant s the pr i s on, i t s w ar den and s t aff , as w el las the 1 U ni on C ountyC or oner ’ s O ffi ce. W i th r es pectt o r el i ef, W i l l i ams as s ert ed that“cri m i nal c h a rg e s s h o u ldb e f

iled .” T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n c lu d e dth a t an in d iv idu a l m a yn o t su e to co m p el of

ficials t o init iat e a n inv esti g ati o n o r pro sec u ti o n . In a d d ition , the D istri ct C o u rt n o t e dth a tW i l l i a m s d i dn o th a v e s t a n d i n g b e c au s e s h e d i dn o ts u f f e ra n y d i r e c ti n

j u ry, d e term in e dth a t sh e c o u ldn o t p ro c e e dw ith o u t a la w y e r e v e n if sh e w a s th e a d m in istra trix of herbr other ’ s es t at e, and dec l i ned t o exer ci s e j ur i s di ct i on overanypendents t at e l aw c l a i ms . Co n s e qu e n t l y , th e Di s tr i c tCo u rtd i s mi s s e dth e c o mp l a i n tp u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . W i l l i ams appe al ed. 2W i l l i am s’ requestfor app ointm ent of cou nsel , her M oti on t o P urchase 3 T r ans cr i pt s , and herr eques tfordi s cl os ur e of “ document at i on and t es t s ” ar e deni ed. 3 T o have s t andi ng t o br i ng a cl ai m i n fede r alcourt , a pl ai nt i ff musts how , i nt eral i a, thats he has “s uffe r ed an i nj uryi n fac t- an i nvas i on of a l egal l ypr ot ect ed i nt er es tw hi ch i s ( a) concr et e and part i cul ar i zed; and ( b) actualori m m i nent , notconj ectur alor hypothet i cal . ” Luj an v. D efe nder s of W i l dl i fe, 504 U . S. 555, 560 ( 1992) ( ci t at i ons and in tern a l qu o tatio n s o m itt e d ). It is w e ll-es tab lish e dth a t “a p riv a te c iti z e n lac k s a ju d icia lly cogni zabl e i nt er es ti n the pr os ecuti on ornon- pr os ecuti on of another . ” Li nda R . S. v. R i char d D . , 410 U . S. 614, 619 ( 1973) . B ecaus e W i l l i ams r eques t ed onl ycr i m i nal pr os ecuti on of thos e al l egedlyr es pons i bl e forherbr other ’ s death, hercl ai m s ar e not cogni zabl e. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e th a tth i s ap p e a lp r e s e n t s n o s ub s t a n t i a lqu e s t i o n , a n dwe w i l l s um m ar i l yaff

i rm . See Thi r d C i r . L A R 27. 4; I . O . P. 10. 6. 3