Court Opinion

ID: 9366281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 16:01:21.979085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:51.560153
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HELENE TONIQUE LAURANT MILLER,                         )
                                                       )
               Plaintiff,                              )
                                                       )
       v.                                              )   Civil Action No. 22-1203 (UNA)
                                                       )
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,                  )
                                                       )
               Defendants.                             )

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

       This matter is before the Court on review of this pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed

in forma pauperis and her civil complaint “file[d] . . . to press charges against the defendants . . .

for violating [her] civil rights of education,” by failing to acknowledge her formal legal name

and by denying her a degree. Compl. at 1. The Court will grant plaintiff’s application and, for

the reasons stated below, will dismiss the complaint.

       First, to the extent plaintiff demands that defendants be prosecuted criminally, the

complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. No plaintiff may initiate

criminal proceedings by filing a complaint with this Court. “[I]n American jurisprudence at least,

a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of

another.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130

F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17, 22 (D.D.C. 2012). This

Court has no authority to compel the government to initiate a criminal investigation or to

prosecute a criminal case, see Shoshone–Bannock Tribes v. Reno, 56 F.3d 1476, 1480 (D.C. Cir.

1995) (citations omitted), because the decision to prosecute or not, and for what offense, rests

with the government, see, e.g., Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978).
       Second, given the dearth of factual allegations, the complaint fails to meet the minimum

pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff’s complaint lacks a

short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the Court’s jurisdiction depends, a short and

plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). For example, plaintiff faults

defendants for refusing to use her proper legal name, yet fails to allege facts linking their

transgression to an actual harm or viable legal claim. As drafted, the complaint does not give

fair notice to the defendants of the claims being asserted, sufficient to prepare a responsive

answer, to prepare an adequate defense and to determine whether the doctrine of res judicata

applies. See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

       The Court will grant the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and will

dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. An Order consistent with this

Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

DATE: January 25, 2023                                        /s/
                                                              CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER
                                                              United States District Judge