WALKER v. EQUITY GROUP, 4:15-cv-00498-SRB. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20151123983
Visitors: 6
Filed: Nov. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN R. BOUGH , District Judge . Before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Request for an Immediate Federal Investigation (Doc. #25). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. Plaintiff demands that this Court order a federal investigation of "said agencies and the Defendants" because Plaintiff believes (1) that "he has been discriminated against due to racial and mental challenges" and (2) that he has information regarding "crimes of `criminal-nature' such
Summary: ORDER STEPHEN R. BOUGH , District Judge . Before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Request for an Immediate Federal Investigation (Doc. #25). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. Plaintiff demands that this Court order a federal investigation of "said agencies and the Defendants" because Plaintiff believes (1) that "he has been discriminated against due to racial and mental challenges" and (2) that he has information regarding "crimes of `criminal-nature' such a..
More
ORDER
STEPHEN R. BOUGH, District Judge.
Before this Court is Plaintiff's Motion in Request for an Immediate Federal Investigation (Doc. #25). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion is denied.
Plaintiff demands that this Court order a federal investigation of "said agencies and the Defendants" because Plaintiff believes (1) that "he has been discriminated against due to racial and mental challenges" and (2) that he has information regarding "crimes of `criminal-nature' such as `embezzlement, [and] mass murder" specifically pertaining to the Hyatt Regency Hotel Skywalk Collapse and allegations of insurance fraud. Id.
As explained by Gould v. N. Dakota, 4:14-CV-018, 2014 WL 1406437, at *4 (D.N.D. Apr. 10, 2014),
[I]t is well-settled that private citizens have no constitutional or other right to right to a criminal investigation. Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007) ("There is no statutory or common law right, much less a constitutional right, to an investigation."); Koger v. Florida, 130 Fed. App'x 327, 335, 2005 WL 1027204, at *6 (11th Cir. May 3, 2005) (opining that a "plaintiff had no substantive due process right to an investigation of a constitutional claim by a sheriff's office"); cf. 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")[.]
Plaintiff's request is beyond the power and jurisdiction of this Court. In appropriate situations, the Court can enjoin individuals, organizations, and government agencies from taking particular actions. However, the Court does not have the power to order a Federal Investigation into alleged discrimination or crimes that may have occurred. Because the Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the issues raised by Plaintiff's motion, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion in Request for an Immediate Federal Investigation (Doc. #25) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
