Kitti Ellen Michael L. Montalvo v. Jeffrey Stamm Peter Ramirez Jeffrey Yllander Douglas Grey

Ninth Circuit

Kitti Ellen Michael L. Montalvo v. Jeffrey Stamm Peter Ramirez Jeffrey Yllander Douglas Grey

951 F.2d 359, 1991 WL 270788

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 19, 1991

Docket90-16065

StatusUnpublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 951 F.2d 359 (Kitti Ellen Michael L. Montalvo v. Jeffrey Stamm Peter Ramirez Jeffrey Yllander Douglas Grey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kitti Ellen Michael L. Montalvo v. Jeffrey Stamm Peter Ramirez Jeffrey Yllander Douglas Grey, 951 F.2d 359, 1991 WL 270788 (9th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

951 F.2d 359

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Kitti ELLEN, et al.; Michael L. Montalvo, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Jeffrey STAMM; Peter Ramirez; Jeffrey Yllander; Douglas
Grey, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-16065.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1991.*
Decided Dec. 19, 1991.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Kitti Ellen and Michael L. Montalvo ("appellants") appeal pro se the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order denying their request to file two criminal complaints against law enforcement officers associated with the arrest and conviction of Montalvo and alleged harassment of Ellen. Appellants contend that the district court violated their first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and their alleged "right to file a criminal complaint against other citizens for violating citizens' constitutional rights and for offenses against the United States." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

It is well established that private citizens can neither bring a direct criminal action against another person nor can they petition the federal courts to compel the criminal prosecution of another person. See Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981); United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1366 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the district court did not err by refusing to allow the appellants to file criminal charges or to request the district court to compel prosecution based on those charges.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

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

951 F.2d 359

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Kitti ELLEN, et al.; Michael L. Montalvo, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Jeffrey STAMM; Peter Ramirez; Jeffrey Yllander; Douglas
Grey, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-16065.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 12, 1991.*
Decided Dec. 19, 1991.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, SCHROEDER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Kitti Ellen and Michael L. Montalvo ("appellants") appeal pro se the district court's order affirming the magistrate judge's order denying their request to file two criminal complaints against law enforcement officers associated with the arrest and conviction of Montalvo and alleged harassment of Ellen. Appellants contend that the district court violated their first amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances and their alleged "right to file a criminal complaint against other citizens for violating citizens' constitutional rights and for offenses against the United States." We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

It is well established that private citizens can neither bring a direct criminal action against another person nor can they petition the federal courts to compel the criminal prosecution of another person. See Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 137 (1986); Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 832 (1985); Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 86-87 (1981); United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 828 F.2d 1356, 1366 (9th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the district court did not err by refusing to allow the appellants to file criminal charges or to request the district court to compel prosecution based on those charges.

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

951 F.2d 359, 1991 WL 270788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kitti-ellen-michael-l-montalvo-v-jeffrey-stamm-peter-ramirez-jeffrey-ca9-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack