United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Clark, proceeding pro se, filed this civil Complaint
(which she characterizes as a “Criminal
Complaint”) alleging malfeasance by Bulloch County
District Attorney Richard Mallard and seeking “a
warrant application hearing (authorized under 18 [U.S.C.
§§] 3041 and 3142) for the arrest, setting or
denial of bond, of one RICHARD MALLARD, and further, that the
United States Attorney be Ordered that this matter be bound
over to a Federal Grand Jury for the purpose of said Grand
Jury's inquisitorial and presentment power relative to
the question of a finding of probable cause contained
herein.” Doc. 1 at 8. She also seeks leave to pursue
her case in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. Since it appears
that she is indigent,  the Court GRANTS her
request. The Court, therefore, proceeds to screen her
Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)
(requiring court to dismiss a case if “at any
time” it determines that the action “fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted”).
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Private citizens are simply not permitted to
initiate criminal actions in federal court. See, e.g.,
Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 494 (4th Cir. 1990)
(“No citizen has an enforceable right to institute a
criminal prosecution.” (citing Linda R. v. Richard
V., 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.”)); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2
(1st Cir. 1989) (“[A] private citizen has no authority
to initiate a federal criminal prosecution.”). The
Court is also without authority to order the United States
Attorney to initiate a prosecution. See Inmates of Attica
Corr. Facility v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375, 379 (2nd
Cir. 1973) (citations omitted) (“federal courts have
traditionally and, to our knowledge, uniformly refrained from
overturning, at the insistence of a private person,
discretionary decisions of federal prosecuting authorities
not to prosecute persons regarding whom a complaint of
criminal conduct is made[, ] . . . even in cases . . .where .
. . serious questions are raised as to the protection of the
civil rights and physical security of a definable class of
victims of crime and as to the fair administration of the
criminal justice system.”). Such orders would violate
the Constitution's separation of powers between the
Executive and Judicial Branches. See Id. at 379-80
(quotes and cite omitted) (the United States Attorney,
although a member of the bar and an officer of the court,
“is nevertheless an executive official of the
Government, and it is as an officer of the executive
department that he exercises a discretion as to whether or
not there shall be a prosecution in a particular
case.”). Her Complaint, therefore, should be
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F. App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F. App'x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 The financial information that Clark
has provided in support of her request raises some questions.
She states that her gross pay is $56.00 per month, but her
take home pay is only $18.10. See doc. 2 at 1. She
lists no source for that income. Id. She also states
that she supports her daughter, but lists no regular monthly
expenses. Id. at 2. Normally, the Court would
require further financial information to resolve the
questions raised by those assertions. See, e.g.,
Kareem v. Home Source Rental, 986 F.Supp.2d 1345,
1346-48 (S.D. Ga. 2013); Robbins v. Universal Music
Group, 2013 WL 1146865 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2013).
As explained below, her claims are due for dismissal. Further
investigation of her financial status is, therefore,
 Since Clarke is proceeding pro
se, the Court must construe her Complaint liberally.
See Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr. v. Baker, 406
F. App'x 416, 421 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Pro
se pleadings must be liberally construed, though the
courts may not serve as de facto
counsel for the litigant or rewrite an otherwise
deficient pleading in order to sustain an action.”).
Even then, her allegations fail to establish a basis for this
Court's jurisdiction. The federal statutes she cites do
not create any private right of action. Compare doc.
1 at 3 (listing as bases for federal question jurisdiction 18
U.S.C. § 1512, 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, and
18 U.S.C. § 1702); with, e.g., Shahin v.
Darling, 606 F.Supp.2d 525, 538-39 (D. Del. 2009)
(“Plaintiff . . . has no private cause of action for
the alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512.”)
(cites omitted); Davis v. Sarles, 134 F.Supp.3d 223,
228 (D.D.C. 2015) (cites omitted)(there is no private right
of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242); and
Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F.Supp. 144, 162
(D.D.C. 1976) (“Section 1702 is purely a criminal
statute and cannot support a civil cause of action,
[Cit.].”). The absence of any colorable basis for
either federal question or diversity jurisdiction provides an
alternative basis to DISMISS the Complaint.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time ...