IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

KENNETH W. WATFORD, *

Plaintiff *

v. * Civil Action No. PJM-19-685

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER, NICHOLE R. BLANCHE, * TRACY L. REID, * Defendants ***

MEMORANDUM OPINION Self-represented Plaintiff Kenneth W. Watford, an inmate currently confined at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana filed the above-captioned complaint. ECF No. 1. Ross seeks to file a criminal complaint against Nichole R. Blanche and Tracy L. Reid, employees of the Untied States Probation Office, for allegedly submitting false statements during the course of his criminal proceedings. Id. The Complaint is not accompanied by a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis or the full filing fee. In light of Watford’s incarcerated status, he shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. This Court is obliged by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A to screen prisoner complaints and dismiss any complaint that is “frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). In deciding whether a complaint is frivolous, “[t]he district court need not look beyond the complaint’s allegations . . . . It must, however, hold the pro se complaint to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys and must read the complaint liberally.” See White v. White,

(4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiff’s entire Complaint is centered on his desire to prosecute employees of the United States Probation Office. He has no legally protected interest in the prosecution of others. The Supreme Court said in Linda R.S. v. Richard D.,

, 619 (1973): “[I]n American

jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” See also Banks v. Buchanan, 336 Fed. App’x 122, 123 (3rd Cir. 2009); Sargeant v. Dixon,

(D.C. Cir. 1997); Sibley v. Obama,

(D.D.C. 2012) aff’d, Civ. No. 12-5198,

(D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2012); Speight v. Meehan,

, 3 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2008). Thus, Watford’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A separate order dismissing the complaint follows.

______________/s/_______________ PETER J. MESSITTE September 18, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE