Maurice D. Harris v. Officer #451, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT MAURICE D. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. No. 3:25-cv-2127 (SRU) OFFICER #451, et al., Defendants.

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER Harris has filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., Doc. No. 1, at 2. I must review his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). When reviewing a complaint under Section 1915, I must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).

Harris alleges that a woman assaulted him when he was walking to the New Haven Police Department to turn himself in for a probation violation. Compl., Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1–2. Harris called 911 and then went to the hospital seeking treatment for his injuries. Id. ¶ 3. After receiving stitches on his face, Harris turned himself in to the New Haven Police Department. Id. ¶¶ 4, 9. Once at the police department, Harris told Officer #451 that he was assaulted earlier and that he wanted to press charges against the assailant. Id. ¶ 4. Officer #451 told Harris that he could not press charges. Id. Harris also informed Officer A. Scott that he wanted to press charges against the assailant. Id. ¶ 6. Officer Scott and two other unidentified officers responded by telling Harris to “get in the cell.” Id. ¶¶ 6–8. Harris now seeks damages from the officers who told Harris that he could not press charges against the assailant. See id. at 3, 5.

“The Constitution does not create a right to have the police investigate or prosecute a crime.” Miller v. Mann, 2017 WL 6624007, at *3 (D. Conn. Dec. 28, 2017). There is also not “any constitutional right to press criminal charges or to a criminal investigation by the relevant government officials.” Id. Because New Haven police officers were not constitutionally obligated to investigate the alleged assault or to charge Harris’s assailant, Harris has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); see also Johnson v. Ruiz, 2012 WL 90159, at *5 (D. Conn. Jan. 10, 2012) (dismissing claim alleging that warden “fail[ed] to permit [plaintiff] to press charges” against correctional officer because plaintiff “had no right to an investigation and had no right to have [the correctional officer] prosecuted”); Bourguignon v. Lantz, 2006 WL 214009, at *7 (D. Conn. Jan. 25, 2006) (concluding that “any allegations that defendants . . . failed to press charges or would not assist [plaintiff] in pressing charges against the inmates involved in the altercation lack legal merit and fail to state a claim cognizable in a section 1983 action”).

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

SO ORDERED at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 19th day of March 2026. /s/ Stefan R. Underhill Stefan R. Underhill United States District Judge