Document: 454 U.S. 83 102 S.Ct. 69 70 L.Ed.2d 65 William LEEKE, etc., et al.v.Melvin Lee TIMMERMAN al. No. 80-2077. Nov. 16, 1981. Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1982. See 1165, 1041. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioners, state correctional officials, seek review of a decision the United States Court Appeals for Fourth Circuit finding petitioners in violation 42 U.S.C. § 1983 opposing respondents' application an arrest warrant. We grant motion respondents leave to proceed forma pauperis and petition writ certiorari reverse on basis our Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 614, 93 1146, 35 536 (1973). 2 * Respondents were prison inmates Central Correctional Institution Columbia, S.C., at time uprising August 1973. contend that during they unnecessarily beaten by guards. Respondent Timmerman sought criminal warrants against four In support his action, presented sworn statements Magistrate along with alleged "confidential information" from employee who purportedly investigated incident concluded victimized Although subsequent hearing Federal District indicated information provided was "suspect best," it sufficient evidence convince state-court probable cause existed issuance The informed legal adviser South Carolina Department Corrections intent issue relayed this Warden. 3 effort have action officers dropped, Warden met County Sheriff, Deputy Attorney, State Solicitor. At meeting, Solicitor reviewed facts stated there would be no indictment three accused guards, but he unsure whether fourth guard. As result wrote letter requesting not issued. also intended ask Law Enforcement Division conduct investigation concerning charges made involved; did initiated. 4 subsequently filed suit contending, among other claims, conspired bad faith block prosecution denied their right "a meaningful ability set governmental machinery because [petitioners' activities] stopped unlawfully, proper way, as example, upon valid determination lack cause."1 found immune damages, prisons Director liable actions discourage warrants. awarded $3,000 compensatory $1,000 punitive attorney's fees two petitioners. 5 affirmed acknowledged under supra, 619, S.Ct., 1149, private citizen lacks judicially cognizable interest or nonprosecution another." concluded, however, foreclose II 6 mother illegitimate child brought enjoin "discriminatory application" Texas Penal Code provision imposed sanctions parent willfully deserted, neglected, refused provide support. courts had held statute applied only parents legitimate children apply children. appellant standing challenge she failed allege nexus between her injury government's failure prosecute fathers Even if granted requested relief, remedy guarantee payment increase probability father support, Ibid. 7 Our holding controls disposition here. threshold inquiry is R.S., questionable injury—the beatings—and officials which gave prior without prosecutor's acts, warrant claimed past misconduct guards prevent future misconduct. could injury, case simply prelude actual prosecution. concede solely within discretion prosecutor. It equally clear necessarily lead 8 A therefore has presenting information, through intervention solicitor, will assist magistrate determining Just able present arguments why should issue, solicitor must issue. This interfered transmittal magistrate, thereby interfering law another. S.C.Code 22-3-710 (1976).2 9 access judicial procedures redress any wrongs. Respondents, words, "set machinery," Lane Correll, 434 F.2d 598, 600 (CA5 1970), bring complaints attention Magistrate. influenced oppose warrants, thus violate rights respondents.3 judgment 10 Reversed. Justice BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 11 my view, Court, mischaracterizing improperly invokes (1973), deny civil pursuant 1985(3) (1976 ed., Supp.IV). 12 involved Texas' enforcement Art. 602 Code, child. Article part "any shall wilfully desert, neglect refuse maintenance eighteen years age, guilty misdemeanor, conviction, punished confinement Jail more than years." construed children, accordingly declined appellant's despite refusal State's statute. Holding lacked raise construction statute, dismissal action. reasoned while "appellant doubt suffered stemming child's contribute payments," " 'direct' relationship" sustained. 618, 1149. Rather, declared, "[t]he prospect will, least future, can, best, termed speculative." U.S., 13 seeks suggesting "[a]s respondent's . prosecution." Ante, 86-87. Court's analysis cannot withstand scrutiny. Contrary suggestion, injury—for purposes §§ 1985(3)—is "beatings," rather deprivation constitutional courts, assured First Fourteenth Amendments. They petitioners' conspiratorial acts deprived them warrant, courts. Plainly substantial making wholly inapposite. If denying 14 Under circumstances, plenary merited. Accordingly, I dissent. previously been appealed Circuit, determined insulated declaratory injunctive relief immunity barred Younger Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669 (1971). Brown, 528 811 (1975). early 1870 Supreme law, "[s]ave just vindication one conviction [another]." Addison, S.C. 356, 364. conclusion comports smooth functioning justice system. American Bar Association Standards Criminal Justice, Prosecution Function 3-3.4 (2d ed. 1980), propose where permits complain directly officer, complainant "should required complaint approval prosecutor, recommendation thereon communicated officer grand jury." Many jurisdictions contain provisions citizens initiate process, some encouraged input prosecuting attorney before See, e. g., Neb.Rev.Stat. 29-404 (1979); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. 2935.10 (1975); S.D.Comp. Laws 23A-2-2 Wis.Stat. 968.02(3) (1977).

Category: 8