Baker v. Brockmeyer

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: March 1, 2023
• Docket: 5:21-cv-05013
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

BRAYLINE BAKER PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:21-cv-05013

OFFICER CHARLES BROCKMEYER, Bella Vista Police Department (“BVPD”); DETECTIVE JOSHUA DUGGAN, BVPD; SERGEANT LUCAS HENSON, BVPD; DETECTIVE ED WILLIAMS, BVPD; OFFICER C. SKAGGS, Benton County Sheriff’s Office DEFENDANTS

ORDER Plaintiff has filed a Motion (ECF No. 49) in which he contends the Defendants committed mail fraud. He suggests Defendants’ actions in connection with their mailing him their Summary Judgment Motions through the postal service constitutes mail fraud. According to Plaintiff, Defendants first sent their Summary Judgment Motions to one address. After the documents were returned to sender, Defendants re-sent the documents to a second address. In the meanwhile, Defendants filed a Motion to have facts set forth in their Summary Judgment Motions deemed admitted. Plaintiff contends these actions constitute the federal criminal offense of mail fraud. Plaintiff also suggests the Defendants engaged in racketeering activities. First, to the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert criminal charges against the Defendants, his request fails. Alleged victims of crime lack any legal right to compel criminal prosecution or to institute criminal prosecution. See Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65 (1986). Second, to the extent Plaintiff claims that Defendants’ actions compel judgment in his favor, his request fails. The Motions to Deem Facts Admitted were denied and Plaintiff was given an extension of time to 1 respond to the Summary Judgment Motions. Plaintiff has now filed his combined Response (ECF No. 50). For these reasons, the Motion (ECF No. 49) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of March 2023.

s/ Christy Comstock CHRISTY COMSTOCK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE