BLD-040 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 16-3693
____________
GOLDA D. HARRIS,
Appellant
v.
WILLIAM ANDERSON; JAMES PLOUSIS; YVONNE
PIERCE; VALERIE ARTHUR; JAMES BARNES; HELEN
ADAMS; STEVEN JOHNSON; KIESHA FISHER; CELESTE
THATCHER; ALAN WALLIBILLICH; ALLEN TOMPKIN;
GARY LANIGAN; MARCUS POWELL; AMILLIA
RENSHAW; ROBIN KELLER; MELINDA MINORICS;
ROBERT LEONARD; MR. PICELLI; SARAH DAVIS;
ROBERT MORANCO; DOUGLAS D. CHIESA;
MARILYN MONTIJO; JOSEPH SOKOLOF; MATEJCEK
__________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civ. No. 3-16-cv-01914)
District Judge: Michael A. Shipp
__________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Due to a Jurisdictional Defect or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 10, 2016
Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed January 5, 2017)
____________
OPINION
____________
PER CURIAM
Golda D. Harris appeals from an order of the District Court dismissing her civil
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons that follow, we will
summarily affirm.
Harris, a state prisoner, filed an in forma pauperis petition for writ of mandamus in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. She named as
“respondents” numerous New Jersey state officials, and she asked the District Court to
order them to reinstate 25 private criminal complaints she had filed. In an order entered
on August 8, 2016, the District Court dismissed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(ii). The District Court first construed Harris’s filing as a civil rights action,
42 U.S.C. § 1983, concluding that she should not be able to evade § 1915’s requirements
by disguising her civil action as a mandamus petition. The District Court then concluded
that Harris had failed to state a claim for relief. The Court acknowledged that private
citizens may file a criminal complaint in New Jersey state court pursuant to state court
rules, see N.J. Court Rule 3:2-1(a), but held that there is no federal constitutional right to
the investigation of a private criminal complaint.
Harris appeals. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.1 We will
summarily affirm the order of the District Court because no substantial question is
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute
binding precedent.
2
presented by this appeal, Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. As explained by the
District Court, any action improperly styled as a mandamus petition must meet the fee
requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74,
78 (3d Cir. 1996). “It is the nature of the document, rather than the label attached by the
litigant, that controls.” Id. Section 1361 of title 28 provides that “[t]he district courts
shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an
officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to
the plaintiff.” Insofar as a request to have New Jersey state officials investigate her state
criminal complaints is not a request to compel an officer or employee of the United States
to perform a duty owed to her, id., the District Court properly declined to treat Harris’s
submission as a petition for writ of mandamus. Cf. Weaver v. Wilcox, 650 F.2d 22, 25
(3d Cir. 1981) (mandamus inapplicable since appellant brought his action against state
officials, not federal officers).
The District Court also properly dismissed Harris’s submission for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted. Section 1915 of title 28 provides that the
District Court shall dismiss a case at any time if it “fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must, in pertinent part, allege a violation of a right secured by the Constitution or
laws of the United States. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). “The first step in
evaluating a section 1983 claim is to ‘identify the exact contours of the underlying right
1
Harris mailed a notice of appeal to the Clerk’s Office of this Court. Our Clerk’s Office
staff then forwarded the notice to the District Court with an instruction to docket it as of
August 26, 2016. The appeal is thus timely filed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).
3
said to have been violated’ and to [then] determine ‘whether the plaintiff has alleged a
deprivation of a constitutional right at all.” Nicini v. Morra, 212 F.3d 798, 806 (3d Cir.
2000) (quoting County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998)).
Generally, there is no federal constitutional right to criminally prosecute another person;
that power resides exclusively in the Executive Branch of the United States Government.
See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974). Although New Jersey allows a
private citizen to file a criminal complaint alleging a violation of state law, “a citizen
lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is
neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution.” Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S.
614, 619 (1973) (“in American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially
cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”).
For the foregoing reasons, we will summarily affirm the order of the District Court
dismissing Harris’s civil action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
4