United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. BREDAR CHIEF JUDGE.
Joseph Owens-El filed the above-captioned “Emergency
Petition for Writ of Mandamus” on October 18, 2017,
with a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. ECF 1, 2. On
October 25, 2017, Owens-El filed an Amended Petition. ECF 3.
Because Owens-El appears to be indigent, the Motion to
Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 2) shall be granted.
twenty-three page handwritten pro se petition is difficult in
parts to understand. As best as can be discerned, Owens-El
claims that unnamed taxi cab drivers twice failed on unspecified
dates in 2016 to transport him to his dialysis treatments.
ECF 1 at 12-13. As a result, he waited in the cold in the
early morning for some seven hours, was unable to attend his
dialysis appointment, and almost passed out. Id; ECF
No. 3 at 2. He seems to attribute a 2016 hospitalization for
pulmonary problems on an unstated date to the lack of
transport on these occasions. ECF 1 at 13. Owens-El asserts
generally: “For nearly 3-years, Petitioner has been
abandoned and or delivered late to dyalises [sic] due to no
fault of Petitioner's emphatically, at the known and
intentional acts of cab drivers of yellow-checker-transdex
Transportation Companies paid with taxpayers
dollars.” ECF No. 1 at 3. He avers that he has
presented his concerns to various employees in the Office of
the Maryland Attorney General, unspecified Baltimore City
health agencies, and Legal Aid; he received apologies, but no
compensation or other relief. ECF No. 1 at 5, 14.
on the above, Owens-El claims include that Defendants have
conspired to murder him, acted with deliberate indifference
to his serious medical needs in violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and their
actions constitute breach of contract. ECF No. 1 at p. 9.
Notably, Owens-El does not identify what mandamus relief he
is seeking in the Petition. He avers the public is owed an
apology for the misappropriation of money. ECF No. 1 at 4-5.
He also asks that this case be converted into a class action,
presumably on behalf of other dialysis patients transported
by the taxi cab company. ECF No. 3. at 3.
28 U.S.C. § 1361, federal district courts have original
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to
compel an officer or employee of the United States or one of
its agencies to perform a duty owed to a petitioner. The
court's authority to issue a writ of mandamus extends
only to federal officers, employees, or agencies.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1361; AT & T Wireless
PCS, Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 172
F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1999). None of the defendants is a
United States officer or employee subject to federal mandamus
jurisdiction. Thus, the court is without the power to compel
by writ of mandamus, any of the Defendants in this action, as
they are a municipality, a state, a corporation, and a
private individual. Gurley v. Superior Court of
Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969)
(state officials); Simon v. Court Reporter, No. C/A
9:09-893-CMC-BM, 2009 WL 2029978, at *2 (D.S.C. July 13,
2009) (private individual); Skelton v. Family Servs.,
Inc., No. C.A. 2:09-847MBS, 2009 WL 1346133, at *4
(D.S.C. May 8, 2009) (private company). The Court therefore
shall deny and dismiss the petition without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction.
his request to bring a class action, Owens-El's
allegations do not amount to claims of constitutional or
federal moment. As a private citizen, Owens-El may not bring
criminal charges against another. See Linda R.S. v.
Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (stating private
individuals have no constitutional or other right to a
criminal investigation, nor any judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or non-prosecution of another).
Criminal charges in this court must be brought by federal
prosecutors. Further, as a pro se non-attorney, Owens-El does
not meet the pre-requisite of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(4) that the representative must fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4).
Pro se plaintiffs have been considered not “equipped by
reason of training and experience” to litigate on
behalf of others. Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261
F.Supp.2d 532, 537 (E.D. Va. 2003). A pro se non-attorney
cannot be placed in a position where he might put at
“risk the rights of others, ” given that the
“ability to protect the interests of the class depends
in part on the quality of counsel.” Oxendine v.
Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).
these reasons, the court will DENY and DISMISS this case
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. A separate Order
 Pamela Howell appears to be an
individual, not the name of a taxi company. In the body of
the Petition, Owens-El identifies Pamela Howell as the
manager of the Fresenius Kidney Care Dialysis Program in
Pikesville, Maryland. ECF 1 at 14-15. Owens-El, however,
raises no specific claims against Howell.
 It is unclear whether Owens-El intends
to name the National Kidney Foundation as a defendant as he
appears to include it in the body of the Petition, although
not on the civil cover sheet. ECF 1 at 1; ECF 1-1. The
National Kidney Foundation is a private organization.
Assuming the National Kidney Foundation were to be ...