Riches v. Karr Et Al - Document No. 5
Riches v. Karr Et Al - Document No. 5
Riches v. Karr Et Al - Document No. 5
5
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 1 of 4
Jonathan Lee Riches, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institute in Salters, South
Carolina, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 He proceeds pro se and in
forma pauperis. The case is before the undersigned for a determination of whether service of
Background
Riches alleges the defendants have violated his civil rights, infringed copyrights, and
committed crimes against him including child abuse, assault and battery, identity theft, kidnaping,
and torture. Riches alleges, among other things, that he was kidnaped in December of 1997 and
1
In August and September of 2007, Riches filed thirty-three cases in various courts throughout the United States.
-1-
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 2 of 4
learn Korean, construct missiles, and play with My Little Pony dolls. Riches indicates he was baby
sat by Andrea Yates, taught identity theft by Cousin Itt, and read George Orwell literature.
In 1999, Riches alleges Klebold made him sew and stitch his trench coat. Riches indicates
he was fed after midnight with Gremlins and did not get to go to Woodstock.
In 2007, Riches alleges he was forced to marry a male inmate. He alleges he was forced
to watch Addams Family reruns and a fluorescent bulb was placed on him to attract mosquitos. He
also alleges that the doctors at the prison did angel of death experiments on him.
As relief, Riches seeks $50 million dollars, the return of all copy righted material related
to him, and a temporary restraining order forbidding the defendants from having any contact with
him.
Discussion
This case is subject to dismissal. First, w e note it appears Riches has pulled the names of
the defendants from a variety of sources including the news, television, and literature.
Defendants appear to have no actual connection with Riches or with Arkansas. Two of the
John Mark Karr, made a confession, which the prosecutors did not believe, in connection
was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the June 20, 2001, killing of her five young children
Klebold was one of two gunmen involved in the Columbine High School massacre on April 20,
-2-
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 3 of 4
Seung-Hui Cho was a student at Virginia Tech who committed the mass murder on April 16,
horror novel written by Stephen King. In the novel Cujo is a rabid St. Bernard.
Second, the factual allegations of the complaint are irrational, incomprehensible, and
clearly baseless. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33, 112 S. Ct. 1728, 118 L. Ed. 2d 340
(1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325-328, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338
(1989)(clearly baseless allegations are those that are fantastic, fanciful, or delusional.).
Third, any claims stemming from events occurring prior to September of 2004 are barred
by the statute of limitations. See e.g., 17 U.S.C. 507(b)(three year statute of limitation applicable
to civil actions to infringement actions under the Copyright Act); Miller v. Norris, 247 F.3d 736,
739 (8th Cir. 2001)(in Arkansas three year statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 cases).
Fourth, to the extent Riches complains “the defendants” have engaged in criminal
conduct by torturing him, kidnaping him, conducting experiments on him, or engaging in various
other actions, we note that private citizens have no right to institute criminal prosecution. See
Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65, 106 S. Ct. 1697, 90 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1986); In re
Kaminski, 960 F.2d 1062, 1064 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (private party lacks judicially cognizable
interest in prosecution of another person); Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 494 (4th Cir. 1990);
-3-
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)
Case 2:07-cv-02103-RTD Document 5 Filed 09/27/2007 Page 4 of 4
Conclusion
I therefore recommend that this case be dismissed on the grounds the claims asserted are
frivolous, are barred by the statute of limitations, and fail to state claims upon which relief can be
dismissed on such grounds at any time). I also recommend that this case be deemed a strike for
Riches has ten days from receipt of the report and recommendation in which to file
written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections
may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. Riches is reminded that
objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the district court.
/s/ J. Marschewski
HON. JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-4-
AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)