ABDULLAH-MALIK v. BRYANT, 1:14-109-RBH-SVH. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20141119f74
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Akeem Alim-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the York County Detention Center. [ECF No. 47]. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kershaw Correctional Institution ("KCI") in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion for an ar
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Akeem Alim-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the York County Detention Center. [ECF No. 47]. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kershaw Correctional Institution ("KCI") in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion for an arr..
More
ORDER
SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Akeem Alim-Nafis Abdullah-Malik, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights while incarcerated at the York County Detention Center. [ECF No. 47]. Plaintiff is now incarcerated at Kershaw Correctional Institution ("KCI") in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff's motion for an arrest warrant for KCI officer Catherine Amason. Plaintiff's motion is denied. Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to, or a judicially-cognizable interest in, the criminal prosecution or non-prosecution of another person or entity. See Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981). "The benefit that a third party may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections under the Due Process Clause, neither in its procedural nor in its `substantive' manifestations." Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to an arrest warrant for Amason.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
