Harner v. Theriault

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedOctober 3, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-12385
StatusUnknown

This text of Harner v. Theriault (Harner v. Theriault) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harner v. Theriault, (D. Mass. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

TIMOTHY HARNER,

Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-12385-JDH v.

OFFICER C. THERIAULT,

Defendant.

ORDER

HEDGES, M.J. On September 18, 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts forwarded to this Court Timothy W. Harner’s “private criminal complaint.” Docket No. 1, Complaint (“Compl.”).1 Mr. Harner, who is in federal custody at Federal Medical Center Devens (“FMC Devens”), alleges that a federal correctional officer at FMC Devens sexually assaulted him. Among other things, Mr. Harner alleges that, after reporting the misconduct, “it was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Prison,” which “dismiss[ed] the matter.” Compl. at 2. I. Applicable Law To the extent Mr. Harner asserts a federal law claim against the correctional officer, then the strictures of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) apply. The Court is required to “review … as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On review, the Court must identify cognizable claims or dismiss

1 The Clerk opened a civil action, and the case was assigned pursuant to the Court’s Program for Random Assignment of Civil Cases to Magistrate Judges. Docket No. 2. a complaint, or any portion of it, presenting claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Because Mr. Harner is proceeding pro se, the Court construes the complaint generously. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). II. Mr. Harner’s Private Criminal Complaint, As Drafted, Is Not Actionable by This Court

Mr. Harner requests that the Court “submit this private criminal complaint to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the filing of criminal charges” against the defendant. Compl. at 1. To the extent Mr. Harner seeks to initiate a criminal investigation, the Court does not have the power to do so. See In re United States, 441 F.3d 44, 58 (1st Cir. 2006) (noting that “the federal courts in the American criminal justice system generally do not have the power to act as investigators or prosecutors of misconduct” and that “such powers are usually exercised by the grand jury and the executive branch”); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (“[T]he Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case”). “A private citizen has no authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution, nor to seek other relief based on alleged violations of federal criminal statutes.” Diaz v. Perez, No. 16- 11860-RGS, 2016 WL 6871233, at *5 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2016) (citing Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989)) (internal quotations omitted). III. To Seek Relief by This Court, Mr. Harner Must File a Civil Complaint That Conforms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

If Mr. Harner wishes to proceed with an action in this Court, he may file a civil complaint that satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The complaint should set forth Mr. Harner’s factual allegations and legal claims in numbered paragraphs or sections. To withstand dismissal, a civil complaint must include (1) a short and plain statement of the court’s authority to hear the case; (2) a short and plain statement of the factual allegations and legal claims for relief; and (3) a demand for the relief the plaintiff seeks, which, for example, could include monetary damages or an order requiring a party to do or not do something. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). While Mr. Harner’s complaint contains a statement of the factual allegations supporting his case, it lacks the other elements required to state a claim. Where a complaint

under the PLRA fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, it must be dismissed by the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). IV. Mr. Harner Must Comply with the Statutory Requirements for Filing and Administrative Fees

In addition to a well-plead complaint, a party bringing a civil action must either (1) pay the $350.00 filing fee and the $55.00 administrative fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); or (2) seek leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). Because Mr. Harner is incarcerated, a request to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee must include “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . . obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). Based on the information contained in the prison account statement, the Court will direct the appropriate prison official to, when funds exist, collect an initial partial payment of the filing fee from Mr. Harner’s account, followed by monthly payments until the entire $350.00 filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1)- (2). However, “[i]n no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil action or appealing a civil or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4); Gallant v. George, 114 F.3d 1169 (1st Cir. 1997) (plaintiff’s failure to pay initial partial filing fee assessed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) was “excusable” when the balance of his prison account at all relevant times was zero and he “lacked the means to pay”). V. Alternative Remedies I note that Mr. Harner may have alternative remedies available to him. It is unclear from the Complaint what administrative remedies, if any, Mr. Harner has pursued. For example, the

Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has a formal administrative remedy system, which is explained more fully at 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10 to 542.19 and the BOP Program Statement 1330.18, Administrative Remedy Procedures for Inmates, a copy of which is attached to this Order. Through this process, people who are incarcerated may seek formal review of a complaint related to any aspect of their incarceration. VI.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (Supreme Court, 1972)
United States v. Nixon
418 U.S. 683 (Supreme Court, 1974)
In Re United States
441 F.3d 44 (First Circuit, 2006)
Dr. Gladys Cok v. Louis Cosentino
876 F.2d 1 (First Circuit, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harner v. Theriault, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harner-v-theriault-mad-2024.