Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Rolando Otero v. United States Attorney General, State of Florida, Richard Gerstein

832 F.2d 141

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-11-13
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • finding that a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another
  • noting that “a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
  • explaining that “[a] private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another . . . [and] prosecutorial discretion may not be controlled by a writ of mandamus.” (citations omitted)
  • stating, “a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another”
  • dismissing petition for writ of mandamus because private citizen cannot compel the investigation and prosecution of another
  • stating, “a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another”
  • affirming dismissal of complaint seeking investigation and prosecution of former state attorney
  • “[A] private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rolando Otero v. United States Attorney General, State of Florida, Richard Gerstein. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
119 opinions
PER CURIAM:

Rolando Otero filed a complaint seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to investigate and prosecute a former Florida State Attorney. The district court properly dismissed the complaint with prejudice for two reasons.

First, a private citizen has no judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another. Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619, 93 S.Ct. 1146, 1149, 35 L.Ed.2d 536 (1973).

Second, prosecutorial discretion may not be controlled by a writ of mandamus. Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234 (D.C.Cir.1965), *142 cer t. denied, 384 U.S. 906, 86 S.Ct. 1341, 16 L.Ed.2d 359 (1966).

AFFIRMED.