Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

CONNIE FRANCES WHIGUM,

 a/k/a Saint Connie Frances Garrison Beck Slack/Slak White Whigum,

 a/k/a Connie Whigum Hamilton,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 3:10cv442/MCR/MD

STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.

Defendants.

ORDER and

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, appearing pro se, has filed a complaint (doc. 1), a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis (doc. 13), and various other motions and pleadings (docs. 3, 4, 5,

7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12). Good cause having been shown, leave to proceed in forma

pauperis will be granted. Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes that

plaintiff has not presented an actionable claim, and that dismissal of this case is

warranted.

Since plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must review his

complaint to determine if it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who

is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court must read

plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92

S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). Dismissals for failure to state a claim are governed

by the same standard as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v.

Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1485 (11 Cir. 1997). In determining whether the complaint th
Page 2 of 3

states a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court accepts all the factual

allegations in the complaint as true and evaluates all inferences derived from those

facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Hunnings v. Texaco, Inc., 29 F.3d

1480, 1483 (11 Cir. 1994). The complaint may be dismissed if the facts as pleaded th

do not state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1968-69, 1974, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (retiring

the negatively-glossed “no set of facts” language previously used to describe the

motion to dismiss standard and determining that because plaintiffs had “not nudged

their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be

dismissed” for failure to state a claim). A complaint is also subject to dismissal

under Rule 12(b)(6) when its allegations--on their face--show that an affirmative

defense bars recovery on the claim. Marsh v. Butler County, Ala., 268 F.3d 1014,

1022 (11 Cir. 2001). th

Although difficult to discern, it appears from the complaint (doc. 1), plaintiff’s 

motion titled, “Amended Petition to Invoke All Writs of Jurisdiction” (doc. 3),

plaintiff’s motion titled, “Request for Criminal, Prosecutory Investigation” (doc. 4),

and plaintiff’s “Notice to Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction” (doc. 5), all styled for the

United States Supreme Court instead of this court, that plaintiff is seeking the 

Supreme Court’s review of a previous order it issued on January 11, 2010 denying

plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari. Plaintiff also seeks to initiate a criminal

investigation and prosecution of various persons, private entities, government

agencies and officers arising from plaintiff’s prosecution in a state criminal case and

her civil commitment. 

To the extent plaintiff seeks review of the Supreme Court’s order denying her

petition for writ of certiorari, this court is without jurisdiction to grant such relief. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330-1369 (providing bases for district courts’ jurisdiction). 

To the extentplaintiff seeks to initiate a criminal investigation and prosecution

of various persons and entities, she fails to state a claim for relief that is plausible

Case No: 3:10cv442/MCR/MD
Page 3 of 3

on its face. The law is well-settled that a private citizen “has no judicially cognizable

interest” in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. Otero v. United

States Attorney Gen., 832 F.2d 141 (11 Cir. 1987) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

th

410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973)); see also Cok v.

Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1 Cir. 1989) (holding that a private citizen has no authority st

to initiate a criminal prosecution); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 226-27 (4 Cir. th

1988) (holding that a private citizen has no constitutional right to have other citizens,

including state actors, criminallyprosecuted); O’Berry v. State Attorneys Office, 214

Fed. Appx. 654, 657 (11 Cir. July 23, 2007) (unpublished) (affirming district court’s th

finding that a private citizen cannot force the United States AttorneyGeneral to bring

a criminal prosecution against another citizen). 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 13) is GRANTED

for the limited purpose of dismissing this action.

And it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That this cause be DISMISSED with prejudice.

2. That all pending motions be DENIED as moot.

3. That the Clerk be directed to close the file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 3 day of November, 2010. rd

 /s/ Miles Davis

MILES DAVIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be

filed within fourteen days after being served a copy hereof. Any different deadline

that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only, and

does not control. A copy of any objections shall be served upon any other parties. 

Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28

U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11 Cir. 1988). th

Case No: 3:10cv442/MCR/MD