*1 83 CAROLINA OF SOUTH DEPART LEEKE, DIRECTOR CORRECTIONS, et al. v. MENT OF TIMMERMAN et al. 16,
No. 80-2077. Decided November Per Curiam. officials,seek review a de- correctional
Petitioners, state *2 for the Fourth the United States cision of § finding petitioners of 42 U. S. C. 1983 violation Circuit application an opposing for arrest warrant. for respondents proceed for grant leave to motion of the We petition for writ certiorari and re- pauperis the forma S. Rich- our decision basis of verse on the (1973). S. 614 ard
I Respondents prison in the inmates Central Correc- were prison at the Columbia, C., time of tional Institution during August uprising contend unnecessarily by prison they uprising beaten the were sought Respondent guards. Timmerman criminal arrest guards. against prison support four his ac- warrants presented Magis- to a tion, Timmerman sworn statements along information” from an trate “confidential prison investigated employee purportedly the at the who inci- respondents by were the dent and concluded that victimized prison guards. Although hearing subsequent in the Fed- provided eral District Court indicated that the information “suspect provided evi- Timmerman was it sufficient best,” probable Magistrate dence to convince the state-court against cause for the existed issuance of arrest warrants prison guards. legal adviser informed the Department the South Carolina his intent of Corrections legal relayed issue informa- the warrants this adviser prison tion to the Warden. against
In an effort to the correc- have the criminal action dropped, legal tional met officers Warden adviser and County Attorney, Deputy with Solici- Sheriff, and State meeting, tor. the facts At the reviewed State Solicitor against and stated that three of there would be no indictment guards, in- accused an unsure whether but he was guard. sought against be the fourth dictment would As a re- meeting, sult of Solicitor wrote a State letter to the Magistrate requesting that warrants issued. The Solicitor stated that intended to also he ask State Law investigation concerning Division Enforcement to conduct charges against Magis- made involved; the officers investigation trate did not issue the warrants and no state was initiated.
Respondents subsequently filed suit in the United States contending, District Court the District of South Carolina among petitioners conspired claims, other in bad faith to block the issuance of the arrest warrants for prison guards. pe- The District Court concluded that meaningful titioners denied their to “a abil- *3 ity governmental machinery [pe- to set in motion the because stopped machinery activities] unlawfully, titioners’ in not proper way, example, upon as for a valid determination of probable Although lack of cause.”1 the State Solicitor and Magistrate damages, were found to immune from legal prisons District Court concluded adviser to the Department and the Director of the of Corrections were lia- requesting ble for their actions in the State Solicitor to discourage issuance of the warrants. were compensatory damages, punitive awarded $3,000 $1,000 damages attorney’s against petitioners. fees the two Appeals
The United States Court
Fourth Circuit
of
for the
acknowledged
affirmed and
R. S. v. Rich-
that under Linda
supra,
judicially
private
ard at 619, “a
citizen lacks a
cognizable
nonprosecution
prosecution
interest in of
or
1The case
previously
had
of
appealed
been
to the United States
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
Appeals
of
deter
at which time the Court
mined the State
were not insulated
and State Solicitor
from declaratory
injunctive
by judicial
immunity and that
relief
(1971).
action was
Harris,
by
not barred
Younger v.
U. S. 37
Brown,
Timmerman (1975).
II illegitimate child anof mother In Linda S. enjoin “discrimi- to District Court States action United provision im- natory application” Penal Code a Texas willfully parent deserted, who posed on sanctions criminal support. provide child The Texas neglected, to refused or only parents applied to the that the statute held courts had illegiti- parents apply legitimate and did children appellant in Linda R. S. did that the held mate children. We standing had the statute because she to not have injury allege her to a sufficient failed illegitimate chil- government’s fathers of to failure granted appellant in Linda R. were S. Even if the dren. remedy sought requested that the the Court concluded relief, sup- payment guarantee appellant of child would not probabil- only remedy sought port. increase provide sup- ity prosecution father for the failure cognizable judicially port, private citizen lacks a and “a nonprosecution of another.” interest Ibid. holding disposition here. Linda R. controls
Our standing inquiry threshold is whether have *4 petitioners. S., in Linda the actions of As injury— questionable there ais beatings officials the state the actions of —and they gave prior to issuance which information to a prosecutor’s acts, of an arrest warrant. Even without guarantee warrant there is no the arrest that issuance of prevent remedy past guards claimed misconduct remedy re- future could misconduct. Even if a spondents’ injury, in this warrant an arrest issuance of simply prelude prosecution. case is to actual solely concede that the decision to is within the dis- prosecutor. equally cretion of the It is clear that issuance of necessarily arrest warrant this case would not lead to a subsequent prosecution. private judicially
A
cognizable
therefore has
citizen
no
prevent
presenting
state officialsfrom
information,
through intervention of the state solicitor, that will assist the
magistrate
determining
whether to issue the arrest war-
respondents
present
rant.
arguments
Just as
were able to
why
as to
an arrest warrant should issue, a state solicitor
present arguments
why
must be able to
as to
an arrest war-
rant
prison
should not issue. This is not a
case which
offi-
cials interfered with the transmittal of information from re-
spondents
magistrate,
thereby interfering
with
respondents’ ability under South Carolina law to seek the ar-
(1976).2
§22-3-710
rest of another. S. C. Code
judicial
this
procedures
case
had access to
any
wrongs. Respondents,
to redress
claimed
in other
governmental
words, were able to
“set motion the
machin-
ery,”
(CA5 1970),
Lane v. Correll,
Reversed. early As as 1870 the South Supreme Carolina indicated that under South law, Carolina just “[slave for proper vindication of the law, no one has an interest in the conviction v. Addi [another].” State son, 2 356, S. C. 3 This comports conclusion the criminal functioning the smooth justice system. The American Bar Association for Criminal Standards Justice, (2d The Prosecution 1980), Function that where propose 3-3.4 ed. permits the law private officer, complain directly judicial citizen to ato complainant “should required prior ap present complaint proval to the prosecutor, prosecutor’s recommendation actions or *5 Marshall and whom Justice Brennan, Justice dissenting. join, Blackmun Justice mischaracterizing my Court, the view, injury, improperly Linda R. S. Rich- invokes (1973), deny standing to 614 ard S. § pursuant 42 42 to U. S. C. 1983and action this civil IV). (1976 §1985(3) Supp. ed., U. S. C. challenge to Texas’ enforcement of R. S. involved
Linda brought by the Code, Penal mother of Texas Art. 602 of the part “any provided in illegitimate Article child. an wilfully neglect provide or refuse parent desert, to who shall support her child his or or children maintenance of for the guilty age, eighteen years of a misde- shall under punished by upon conviction, shall be confine- meanor, and years.” County than for more two ment the Jail only parents apply legiti- 602 to to Art. State construed prosecute accordingly had declined to mate children, despite provide appellant’s child his refusal to father of sought enjoin support appellant to for the child. “discriminatory application” Holding of the statute. State’s appellant standing lacked raise this af- statute, the construction of the State’s criminal this Court firmed the dismissal action. The Court reasoned “appellant injury stemming while no doubt suffered support from the failure of her child’s to contribute father payments,” relationship” there was no between “‘direct’ injury State’s sus- failure to father supra, tained. de- S., Rather, “[t]he prospect clared, in the at least will, jury.” thereon should or grand be communicated to officer judicial Many jurisdictions provisions contain to initiate private citizens process, criminal input pros- required encouraged and some have g., e. ecuting attorney See, Neb. before issuance of an warrant. arrest D. §29-404 Rev. (1979); (1975); §2935.10 Stat. Ohio Rev. Ann. Code §968.02(3) (1977). Comp. §23A-2-2 Laws (1979); Ann. Wis. Stat. *6 payment support can, result in future, best, be termed only speculative.” S., at 618. bring present seeks to case within the hold-
ing by suggesting “[a]s of Linda R. Linda R. S., questionable respondents’ injury— there is alleged beatings the actions of the state officialsin —and they gave Magistrate prior which information to a to issuance of an arrest warrant. ... It is . . . clear that issuance of necessarily the arrest in this case warrant lead to prosecution.” subsequent Ante, at 86-87. The Court’s analysis simply scrutiny. Contrary cannot withstand suggestion, respondents’ alleged injury Court’s the—for purposes §§ pursuant of their civil action 1983and 1985(3) “beatings,” deprivation not the but rather the —is right their constitutional of access to the courts, assured They the First and Fourteenth Amendments. have petitioners’ conspiratorial deprived acts them of their right to seek an warrant, arrest and thus denied them their Plainly constitutional of access to the courts. there is a alleged injury petitioners’ substantial nexus between the making wholly inapposite. acts, thus Linda R. S. If there is denying respondents standing bring a basis for their civil action, it is not to be found Linda R. S. plenary
Under the circumstances, review is Ac- merited. cordingly, I dissent.