IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

CHAD KISTER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-CV-572

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

PAT KELLY, ATHENS COUNTY

SHERIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. No. 1. Upon consideration, the

Court finds the motion is meritorious and, therefore, it is GRANTED. IT

IS ORDERED THAT plaintiff be allowed to prosecute his action without

prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers who render service

in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. However,

having performed the initial screen of the Complaint required by 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e), it is recommended that certain claims be dismissed.

The allegations of the Complaint are not entirely clear. 

Plaintiff appears to allege, first, that certain individuals broke into

his apartment or intercepted his telephone calls. Plaintiff demanded that

the defendant Athens County Sheriff, several of his deputies, and an

Upper Arlington Police Lieutenant arrest these individuals, but his

requests were refused. A private citizen has no “judicially cognizable

interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.” Linda R.S.

Case: 2:12-cv-00572-ALM-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 07/25/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973). See also Leake v. Timmerman,

454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981); Peek v. Mitchell, 419 F.2d 575 (6th Cir.

1970); Bond v. Thornburgh, 891 F.2d 289 (Table), 1989 WL 149981 (6th Cir.

December 12, 1989). The claims against Pat Kelly, the Athens County

Sheriff, defendants Bruce Fick, Jack E. Taylor, Brian Cooper and Rodney

Smith, officers of the Athens County Sheriff’s Office, and Ernie Ankrom,

a Lieutenant of the Upper Arlington Police Department, cannot proceed. 

Moreover, because it appears that plaintiff names Athens County, Ohio,

and the Upper Arlington Police Department as defendants only in

connection with his demand that other individuals be arrested or

prosecuted, the claims against these entities also cannot proceed.

The Complaint also appears to allege claims against Tri-County

Mental Health and Counseling and Margaret Sterling and against Dr. Reddy

Vaka and Jane Krason of the Athens Behavioral Healthcare in connection

is an apparent involuntary hospitalization of plaintiff. Although the

precise nature of plaintiff’s claims in this regard are not clear, the

Court concludes that at this juncture the action may proceed on those

claims.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that all claims except the claims

against Tri-County Mental Health and Counseling and Margaret Sterling and

against Dr. Reddy Vaka and Jane Krason of the Athens Behavioral

Healthcare in connection is an apparent involuntary hospitalization of

plaintiff be dismissed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to

state a claim for relief.

As to the claims against Tri-County Mental Health and

Counseling and Margaret Sterling and against Dr. Reddy Vaka and Jane

Krason of the Athens Behavioral Healthcare in connection is an apparent

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00572-ALM-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 07/25/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
involuntary hospitalization of plaintiff, the United States Marshal

Service is DIRECTED to effect service of process by certified mail. 

Defendants may have 45 days after service of process to respond to the

Complaint. 

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and

serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. 

F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de

novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision

of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

July 25, 2012 s/Norah McCann King 

 (Date) Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:12-cv-00572-ALM-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 07/25/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:12-cv-00572-ALM-NMK Doc #: 2 Filed: 07/25/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>