Antwone Stokes v. Rose

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03535
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTWONE STOKES, NO. CV 25-3535-ODW (AGR) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 THE CLAIMS AGAINST THE FBI v. 14 DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE CORRECTIONAL OFFICER ROSE, et DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE 15 al., 16 Respondent. 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint on April 19 20 17, 2025. The complaint names various defendants including the Federal Bureau 21 of Investigation (“FBI”), FBI Special Agent Moultrie, and FBI Special Agent Harris 22 (collectively, “FBI Defendants”). Plaintiff seeks a “full investigation by the FBI into 23 all my allegations.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) The court orders Petitioner to 24 25 show cause, in writing, on or before July 21, 2025, why the court should not 26 recommend dismissal of the claims against the FBI Defendants with prejudice. 27

28 1 I. 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3 Plaintiff, who is incarcerated in California State Prison, Los Angeles County 4 5 (“CSP-LAC”), filed a civil rights complaint against the following defendants: (1) 6 Correctional Officer Rose; (2) Correctional Officer Costillo; (3) Ms. Young, a cook; 7 (4) FBI Special Agent Moultrie; (5) the FBI; and (6) FBI Agent Harris. (Dkt. No. 1 8 at 1, 14, 15.) 1 All of the individual defendants are sued in their individual 9 10 capacity. 11 II. 12 DISCUSSION 13 To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) a violation of 14 15 rights protected by the Constitution or created by federal statute, (2) proximately 16 caused (3) by conduct of a ‘person’ (4) acting under color of state law.” Crumpton 17 v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 Plaintiff sues the FBI Defendants and seeks a “full investigation by the FBI 19 20 into all my allegations.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) 21 “[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to 22 decide whether to prosecute a case.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 23 (1974). A federal court cannot compel the FBI to conduct a criminal investigation. 24 25 See, e.g., Bullock v. Sheela, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33733, *6-*7 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 26

27 1 All citations are to the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF in the header of the document. 28 1 | 28, 2018) (“Federal courts cannot instigate criminal investigations and prosecutions, and cannot compel a prosecutorial authority to do so.”); see also 3 4 McKinney v. Mailroom Officer, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71710, *8 (D. Haw. Apr. 19, 5 | 2024) (dismissing claims seeking to compel FBI investigation without leave to 6 | amend because amendment would be futile). lll. 8 ORDER 9 10 The court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before July 21, 2025, why 11 | the court should not recommend dismissal of the claims against the FBI V2 Defendants. If Plaintiff does not timely respond to this Order to Show Cause, the 13 14 court will recommend that the District Court dismiss the claims against the FBI

15 | Defendants with prejudice. 16 17 8 Rca. M6 19 ( | Cunbicngy DATED: June 20, 2025 20 ALICIA G. ROSENBERG 1 United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28