Edward P. Keenan, Jr. v. George F. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964). · Go Syfert
Search
Edward P. Keenan, Jr. v. George F. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
36 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas D. Nicholson, Jr. v. Theodoor Voorstad, MD, et al. (pamd, 2025-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971 1998 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas D. Nicholson, Jr. v. Theodoor Voorstad, MD, et al.
M.D. Penn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ala.), aff’d, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971))); see also Wheeler v. Ulisny, 482 F. App’x 665, 669 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential) (“[A] private citizen cannot file a criminal complaint in court nor is there a federal right to require the Government to initiate criminal proceedings.”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (“[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964). 44 Defendants do not address Nicholson’s stat…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawley v. Salamon
M.D. Penn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ala.), aff'd, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971))); see also Wheeler v. Ulisny, 482 F. App’x 665, 669 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential) ("[A] private citizen cannot file a criminal complaint in court nor is there a federal right to require the | Government to initiate criminal proceedings.”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 973) (“{I]In American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable | interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 1611 (1st Cir. 1964). | offer evidence to support the claims.” Sche…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gannaway v. Gourley
M.D. Penn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ala.), aff’d, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971))); see also Wheeler v. Ulisny, 482 F. App’x 665, 669 (3d Cir. 2012) (nonprecedential) (“[A] private citizen cannot file a criminal complaint in court nor is there a federal right to require the Government to initiate criminal proceedings.”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973) (“[I]n American jurisprudence at least, a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”); Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964). 8 See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484-8…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ainooson v. O'Gara
D. Mass. · 2024 · confidence medium
As a threshold matter, § 241 and § 242 are criminal statutes, and, as a private individual, Ainooson lacks standing to “initiate a criminal prosecution in his own name.” Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964); see also Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (“Only the United States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 (the criminal analogue of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 )”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Person v. Andrewjeski
W.D. Wash. · 2023 · confidence medium
Rhodes v. Robinson, 399 F.App’x 160, 165 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 24 1 Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Van Hook v. State of Idaho
D. Idaho · 2022 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the dismissal of claims under 18 U.S.C. § 241 because it is a criminal statute MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS STATE OF IDAHO, JOHN MEIENHOFFER, JUDGES OF THE IDAHO THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COLLECTIVELY, STEVEN FISHER, MARY GRANT, KIMBERLY STRETCH, VIRGINIA BOND, DIANE MINNICH, and AARON HOOPER - 18 that does “not give rise to civil liability”); Rhodes v. Robinson, 399 F. App’x 160, 165 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (“Only the U.S. Attorney can initiate criminal proceedings in federal c…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Van Hook v. State of Idaho
D. Idaho · 2022 · confidence medium
CANTRILL; ALPS- PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; AND AGENT RYAN O’NEAL AND UNKNOWN AGENTS OF THE FBI - 14 (9th Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (“Only the U.S. Attorney can initiate criminal proceedings in federal court.”) (citing Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964) (per curiam); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989) (per curiam) ( “Only the United States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–242 ….”); Bryant v. Quintero, 2001 WL 1018717 , *2 (N.D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bey v. Gigiello
D. Mass. · 2019 · confidence medium
Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964) (per curiam); accord Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989)(per curiam)(stating that only the United States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 ); Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mason v. Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA)
D. Mass. · 2019 · confidence medium
This is a criminal statute and there is no, “authority for permitting a private individual to initiate a criminal prosecution in his own name.” Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964). 2.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liviz Sr. v. Trump
D. Mass. · 2019 · confidence medium
Kennan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964) (per curiam); accord Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989)(per curiam)(stating that only the United States as prosecutor can bring a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 ); Stone v. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555 (D.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lath v. Oak Brook Condominium Owners' Association, et al.
D.N.H. · 2017 · confidence medium
Keenan [v. McGrath], 328 F.2d 610, 611 [(1st Cir. 1964)].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mikhail v. Kahn
E.D. Pa. · 2014 · confidence medium
The long-standing view of the Supreme Court is that such power is exclusive.” (citation omitted)); Saro v. Brown, 11 Fed.Appx. 387, 388 (6th Cir.2001); Peek, 419 F.2d at 577-78; Smith v. United States, 375 F.2d 243, 246-47 (5th Cir.1967); Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam) ("[W]e are unaware of any authority for permitting a private individual to initiate a criminal prosecution in his own name in a United States District Court....”). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kunzer v. Magill
D. Minnesota · 2009 · confidence medium
Jones v. Clinton, 206 F.3d 811, 812 (8th Cir.2000); Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989) (per curiam); Conn. Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Co., 457 F.2d 81, 86-87 (2d Cir.1972) (“It is a truism, and has been for many decades, that in our federal system crimes are always prosecuted by the Federal Government, not as has sometimes been done in Anglo-American jurisdictions by private complaints.”); Bass Angler Sportsman Soc’y v. United States Steel Corp., 324 F.Supp. 412, 415 (S.D.Ala.1971) (it is a “firmly e…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Overton v. Torruella
D. Mass. · 2001 · confidence medium
Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hassell v. United States
N.D. Tex. · 1999 · confidence medium
Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964); See United States v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 546 , 24 L.Ed. 1082 (1878).
cited Cited as authority (rule) JEFFREY BALAWAJDER v. LIEUTENANT B. JACOBS
unknown court · confidence medium
Ala.), aff’d, 447 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1971); accord Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1989); Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964). * Pursuant to 5TH CIR.
cited Cited "see" Granger v. Federal Bureau of Investigations
W.D. Wash. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rhodes v. Robinson, 399 3 F. App'x 160, 165 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964) 4 (per curiam)).
cited Cited "see" Lara v. Lara
W.D. Wash. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rhodes v. Robinson, 399 F. App'x 160 , 165 19 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir. 1964) (per curiam)); Lara 20 v. McGrew, No. 3:24-cv-05253-DGE, Dkt.
cited Cited "see" Rhodes v. Robinson
9th Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964) (per curiam).
cited Cited "see" Harman v. Frye
W. Va. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir.1964); Pugach v. Klein, 193 F.Supp. 630, 637 (S.D.N.Y.1961).
cited Cited "see" Winslow v. Romer
D. Colo. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610, 611 (1st Cir.1964).
discussed Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. Savage v. Arnold
E.D. Pa. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964); Pugach v. Klein, 193 F.Supp. 630, 637 (S.D.N.Y.1961). 2 Rather than permit private complaints to be filed, it has been suggested that such matters be referred to the United States Attorney.
cited Cited "see" United States Ex Rel. Mattson v. Northwest Paper Co.
D. Minnesota · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964), and Pugach v. Klein, 193 F.Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y.1961).
cited Cited "see" Bass Angler Sportsman Society v. United States Steel Corp.
N.D. Ala. · 1971 · signal: see · confidence high
See Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964), and Pugach v. Klein, 193 F. Supp. 630 (S.D.N.Y.1961).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Seyed Alireza Amidi Namin v. Kevin Jeffrey Vert
D. Utah · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Actions that “contemplate a criminal proceeding . . . cannot be enforced by any civil action.”48 Criminal prosecutions are governed by separate procedural rules,49 and defendants are protected by constitutional safeguards that could be undermined in a civil case.50 The Executive Branch 44 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (a). 45 See generally, Amended Complaint. 46 Id. ¶¶ 52 , 53–54; see also id. ¶ 67 . 47 See generally, Amended Complaint. 48 United States v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 546, 547 (1878). 49 See Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 , 400 (1938) (distinguishing potential punishments between civil …
cited Cited "see, e.g." Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Company, Inc.
2d Cir. · 1972 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e. g., Keenan v. McGrath, 328 F.2d 610 (1st Cir. 1964).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward P. KEENAN, Jr., Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
George F. McGRATH Et Al., Defendants, Appellees
6291_1.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Mar 9, 1964.
328 F.2d 610
Woodbury, Hartigan, Aldrich.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Edward P. Keenan, Jr., a prisoner confined in the Massachusetts Correctional Institution at South Walpole, asks this court to appoint counsel to prosecute his appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissing a complaint filed by him pro se in that court. An examination of the record discloses that although his complaint was docketed as a civil action, Keenan alleges therein that “the nature of his action is on the Criminal Side,” and this assertion is supported by the fact that Keenan does not ask for any civil remedy, such as damages or an injunction, but instead charges the defendants, who are correctional officers of the Commonwealth, with conspiring to deprive him of rights and privileges secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 241 and interfering with the mail in violation of §§ 1700, 1701 and 1708 id. The court below, treating the complaint as seeking criminal prosecution of officers of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dismissed it on the ground that it had not been made upon oath before a United States Commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with federal offenses, and for the further reason that it did not appear from the complaint that there was probable cause to believe that the defendants had committed any offense under federal law. Keenan was allowed to appeal in forma, pauperis.

Not only are we unaware of any authority for permitting a private individual to initiate a criminal prosecution in his own name in a United States District Court, but also to sanction such a procedure would be to provide a means to circumvent the legal safeguards provided for persons accused of crime, such as arrest by an officer on probable cause or pursuant to a warrant, prompt presentment for preliminary examination by a United States Commissioner or other officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the United States, and, in this case, indictment by a grand jury.

Seeing no possible merit whatsoever in this appeal, we shall deny Keenan’s petition for appointment of counsel and sua sponte affirm the order of the court below as in Joyce v. United States, 1 Cir., 327 F.2d 531, and Suarez v. United States, 1 Cir., 328 F.2d 473.

Judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District Court.