United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal. Plaintiff Edward Frank Held, IV, an inmate of the
Mississippi Department of Corrections,  brings this pro
se Complaint seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Held is proceeding in forma pauperis. See Order .
The named Defendants are Ricky Adam, Sheriff of Hancock
County, Mississippi; Brandon Zeringue, Warden of Hancock
County Detention Center; and David Allen, Chief of Police for
the City of Waveland Police Department. The Court, having
liberally construed Held's Complaint and Response  in
consideration with the applicable law, finds that this case
should be dismissed.
Facts and Procedural History
October 28, 2015, when Held was an inmate of the Hancock
County Detention Center, he was informed by family members
that his home located in the City of Waveland was burglarized
and his vehicle was stolen. Held claims that in November of
2015, his brother met a City of Waveland Police Officer at
the residence and informed the Officer of the burglary. Held
claims the Officer stated that “it would be taken care
of” and left the residence. Compl.  at 5 (CM/ECF
pagination); Resp.  at 3.
claims that he made oral requests to detention officers and
completed grievance forms at the detention center requesting
that a police report be filed regarding the burglary and
stolen vehicle. Held claims that his requests either went
unanswered or he was informed that inmates were not allowed
to file police reports.
Held also states that in July of 2016, he met with Warden
Zeringue about his desire to file a police report and Warden
Zeringue set up a meeting between Held and a Hancock County
Investigator. Held states that he met with Hancock County
Investigator Allison, within two days of his meeting with
Warden Zeringue, and that during this meeting, Allison called
the Waveland Police Department and spoke to an Investigator.
It appears Held left the meeting under the impression that a
Waveland Investigator would be coming to the detention center
to speak with him. Held states that Allison instructed that
Held be brought back to Allison's office, if
“Waveland did not show up . . . to take my
report.” Compl.  at 7 (CM/ECF pagination).
complains that a Waveland Police Officer did not show up to
take his report nor was he taken back to Allison's
office. Held also states that “Waveland P.D.
Investigators have been contacted via email by Hancock County
Safety Complex Administrator Renee Lick numerous times with
no response.” Resp.  at 3.
response to the Court's Order  directing Held to state
how each Defendant violated his constitutional rights, Held
essentially restates the facts of his original Complaint and
provides some additional factual information. See
Resp. . As relief, Held states that he “would like
to be reimbursed for all loss” which he estimates to be
about $45, 000.00, and he would “like to put an end to
Hancock County's poetic justice.” Compl.  at 4.
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (as
amended), applies to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis,
and provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at
any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or
appeal - (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” Since Held is proceeding in forma pauperis,
his Complaint is subject to the case-screening procedures set
forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2).
order to have a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff ''must allege facts showing that a person,
acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of a
right, privilege or immunity secured by the United States
Constitution or the laws of the United States.''
Bryant v. Military Dep't of the State of Miss.,
597 F.3d 678, 686 (5th Cir. 2010). Section 1983 is not a
source of substantive rights; it merely provides an avenue to
assert rights already in existence. Albright v.
Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). “The first step
in any such claim is to identify the specific constitutional
right allegedly infringed.” Id. (citations
claiming that alleged inadequacies with the Waveland Police
Department's response to the burglary of his home and
theft of his vehicle violated his constitutional rights. The
Court notes that a “victim of a crime has no
constitutionally protected interest in the prosecution or
pursuit of a perpetrator” and the “police's
decision to pursue a criminal investigation is a
discretionary one.” Payne v. Jefferson Parish
Sherriff's Dep't., No. 14-225, 2014 WL 1154482,
*2 (E.D. La. 2014) (citations omitted). It is well-settled
that a private citizen does “not have a constitutional
right to compel a criminal prosecution.” Lewis v.
Jindal, 368 F. App'x 613, 614 (5th Cir. 2010)
(citations omitted). Therefore, the “decision to file
or not file criminal charges” does not give rise to
§ 1983 liability. Oliver v. Collins, 904 F.2d
278, 281 (5th Cir. 1990). Held is not entitled to relief
under § 1983 for the alleged inadequate responses to his
request to file a police report or press charges for the
burglary of his home and theft of his vehicle.
also claims his constitutional rights were violated when his
jail grievances were ignored, denied, or not responded to in
a timely manner. Although Held complains about the handling
of his grievances, it is apparent from his pleadings that
Warden Zeringue, Investigator Allison, and Administrator
Lick, attempted to assist Held with this issue. Held admits
that numerous efforts were made on his behalf to contact the
Waveland Police Department about this issue. In any event,
Held does not have a federally protected liberty interest in
having a prison grievance investigated or resolved to his
satisfaction. Geiger v. Jowers,404 F.3d 371, 373-74
(5th Cir. 2005). Therefore, Held did not suffer a
constitutional violation when his grievances were ignored,
denied, or delayed. Id.; Mahogany v.
Miller, 252 F. App'x 593, 595 (5th Cir. 2007)
(finding jail's refusal to process inmate's
grievances did not violate his constitutional rights).