Filed: May 17, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2334 RAS-SELAH: 7 TAFARI: EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GLASSER AND GLASSER PLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00532-MSD-FBS) Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El, Appellant
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2334 RAS-SELAH: 7 TAFARI: EL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GLASSER AND GLASSER PLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00532-MSD-FBS) Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011 Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El, Appellant ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2334
RAS-SELAH: 7 TAFARI: EL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
GLASSER AND GLASSER PLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00532-MSD-FBS)
Submitted: April 29, 2011 Decided: May 17, 2011
Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his complaint. The district court
interpreted the complaint as criminal in nature and dismissed
it. A private person may not initiate a criminal action in the
federal courts. Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,
410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”);
Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co.,
457 F.2d
81, 86-87 (2d Cir. 1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many
decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted
by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in
Anglo-American jurisdictions by private complaints.”). *
To the extent that we can discern civil claims in the
complaint, the claims fall within the realm of common law torts.
Thus, a showing of jurisdiction premised on diversity of
citizenship would be necessary for the district court to
entertain the complaint. At base, diversity of citizenship
requires parties to be citizens of different states or of a
domestic state and a foreign state. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (2006).
*
Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El claims that at least part of his
authority to prosecute stems from his status as a sovereign.
Whatever the nature and jurisdiction of his sovereignty, it does
not entitle him to initiate criminal prosecutions in United
States courts.
2
“The burden of proving jurisdictional facts rests upon the
plaintiff.” Haynes v. James H. Carr, Inc.,
427 F.2d 700, 704
(4th Cir. 1970). The complaint here not only failed to plead
such diversity, but affirmatively pleaded facts undermining the
existence of diversity in the jurisdictional sense.
Finding no merit in the appeal, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3