Opinion

Brown v. Taylor

Court
District Court, District of Columbia
Filed
Nov 1, 2011
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge Rosemary M. Collyer
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 31.4%

The opinion

"-""---- "" "--- "-"---" .-------

FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NOV - 1 2011

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. DistrIct & B

Courts for the District o;~~~~~ra

SHIRON BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No.

11 1~{J8

WILLIAM TA YLOR,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

her pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint.

According to plaintiff, William Taylor kidnapped her on March 7, 2011. Compl. at 1-2.

This individual and seven other men allegedly raped her repeatedly and impregnated her. Id at

1; see id, Attach. Plaintiff sues "William Taylor and each man for 50,000.00 ... for pregnacies

[sic] and punitive damages." Id at 2.1

Federal district courts have jurisdiction in civil actions arising under the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, federal district courts

Plaintiff also alleges that "[ a] Ms. Katherine Lanier" of the Metropolitan Police

Department "kidnapped a Miss Hattie Peterson Jefferson[] on July 9th , 2011 from her horne,"

Compl. at 2, held her hostage for several days during which Lanier and "a host of others" raped

and tortured her. !d. at 3. Plaintiff states that Ms. Jefferson's "case needs to be investigated."

Id Plaintiffs relationship to Ms. Jefferson is not clear, and it does not appear that plaintiff has

standing to assert claims on Ms. Jefferson's behalf. Furthermore, the Court has no authority to

initiate the investigation or prosecution of a crime. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,

693 (1974) (acknowledging that the Executive Branch "has exclusive authority and absolute

discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case"); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234-35

(D.C. Cir. 1965) (per curiam), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 906 (1966) ("[T]he question of whether and

when prosecution is to be instituted is within the discretion of the Attorney General. Mandamus

will not lie to control the exercise of this discretion.").

N 3

have jurisdiction over civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000, and the suit

is between citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). This complaint neither states a

federal claim nor establishes diversity of citizenship of the parties. Accordingly, the Court will

dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opin·

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.