Ras-Selah: 7 Tafari: El v. Glasser & Glasser PLC

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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