#Scenario Let's say someone wanted to force a US State to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

###It is assumed: The evidence for crimes will be solid, but the context of prosecution is not. There is no clear procedure for what court would be responsible for bringing the case to court. This is the primary reason that a DA or solicitor would refuse the case. Criminal court would handle the charges, but before criminal court could hear the case, damage (personal injury) would have to be established. Civil court would handle damages, but before a damage suit can be brought a criminal liability must be established. Procedural catch-22.

#The question:

##Narrowing Scope:

#Context of the question and why it is here

###Tangential: I found this article to put into better words than my own why prosecutorial immunity goes too far right now. This doesn't bear directly on my question, but it does explain why my question is important.

Scenario

Let's say someone wanted to force a US State to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

It is assumed:

The evidence for crimes will be solid, but the context of prosecution is not. There is no clear procedure for what court would be responsible for bringing the case to court. This is the primary reason that a DA or solicitor would refuse the case. Criminal court would handle the charges, but before criminal court could hear the case, damage (personal injury) would have to be established. Civil court would handle damages, but before a damage suit can be brought a criminal liability must be established. Procedural catch-22.

The question:

Narrowing Scope:

Context of the question and why it is here

Tangential:

I found this article to put into better words than my own why prosecutorial immunity goes too far right now. This doesn't bear directly on my question, but it does explain why my question is important.

#Scenario Let's say someone wanted to force a US STATE to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

If a person went to a solicitor and accused an entity of illegal activity knowing in advance that the solicitor or the DA would try to refuse to take the case, would it theoretically be possible to then file suit against the solicitor under 42 U.S.C. 1983:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable."

Keep in mind that the goal of this is to force a STATE to address a question when both state and federal government want the other to take care of the problem so that they don't have to deal with the fallout.

Is there an existing governance process that exists to handle such a problem? If there is, then this would be the correct answer. This could be a legal mechanism or a legislative mechanism.

Is there a legal procedure of which I am unaware? I cross-posted this into Politics.SE because I honestly don't think there is a clear area capable of resolving the question in isolation (yet).

• This is a procedural question having to do with political management of legal entities, not of federal, state, criminal or common law.
• This is a speculative question. I do not expect anyone to have a firm definitive answer, but I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I am asking here because of that choice not to rule out the possibility that an answer exists.

#Scenario Let's say someone wanted to force a US State to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

If a person went to a solicitor and accused an entity of illegal activity knowing in advance that the solicitor or the district attorney would try to refuse to take the case, would it theoretically be possible to then file suit against the solicitor under 42 U.S.C. 1983:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable."

Keep in mind that the goal of this is to force a state to address a question when both state and federal government want the other to take care of the problem so that they don't have to deal with the fallout.

Is there an existing governance process that exists to handle such a problem? If there is, then this would be the correct answer. This could be a legal mechanism or a legislative mechanism.

Is there a legal procedure of which I am unaware? I cross-posted this into Politics.SE because I honestly don't think there is a clear area capable of resolving the question in isolation (yet).

• This is a procedural question having to do with political management of legal entities, not of federal, state, criminal or common law.
• This is a speculative question. I do not expect anyone to have a firm definitive answer, but I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I am asking here because of that choice not to rule out the possibility that an answer exists.

I apologize in advance for cross-posting this, but both groups have a valid point in claiming that the other group should handle this question since it's a question of legal procedure which gets political fast.

#Hypothetical Buildup Let's say someone wanted to force a US STATE to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

###It is assumed: The evidence for crimes will be solid, but the context of prossecution is not. There is no clear procedure for what court would be responsible for bringing the case to court. This is the primary reason that a DA or solicitor would refuse the case. Criminal court would handle the charges, but before criminal court could hear the case, damage (personal injury) would have to be established. Civil court would handle damages, but before a damage suit can be brought a criminal liability must be established. Procedural catch-22.

#Context of the question and why it is here

• This is a procedural question having to do with political management of legal entities, not of federal, state, criminal or common law.
• This is a speculative question. I do not expect anyone to have a firm definitive answer, but I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I am asking here because of that choice not to rule out the possibility that an answer exists.

#The multi-prong question:

Is there an existing governance process that exists to handle such a problem? If there is, then this would be the correct answer. This could be a legal mechanism or a representative mechanism.

Is there a legal procedure of which I am unaware? I had to cross-post this into politics because I honestly don't think there is a clear area capable of resolving the question in isolation (yet).

###Update: After some comment discussion I have updated the question a little.

###Tangential: I found this article to put into better words than my own why prosecutorial immunity goes too far right now. This doesn't bear directly on my question, but it does explain why my question is so important. https://reason.com/archives/2008/04/24/suing-the-da

#Scenario Let's say someone wanted to force a US STATE to get into a legal battle to resolve an open issue that the legal system has been reluctant to resolve and for which existing laws were murky.

###It is assumed: The evidence for crimes will be solid, but the context of prosecution is not. There is no clear procedure for what court would be responsible for bringing the case to court. This is the primary reason that a DA or solicitor would refuse the case. Criminal court would handle the charges, but before criminal court could hear the case, damage (personal injury) would have to be established. Civil court would handle damages, but before a damage suit can be brought a criminal liability must be established. Procedural catch-22.

#The question:

Is there an existing governance process that exists to handle such a problem? If there is, then this would be the correct answer. This could be a legal mechanism or a legislative mechanism.

Is there a legal procedure of which I am unaware? I cross-posted this into Politics.SE because I honestly don't think there is a clear area capable of resolving the question in isolation (yet).

#Context of the question and why it is here

• This is a procedural question having to do with political management of legal entities, not of federal, state, criminal or common law.
• This is a speculative question. I do not expect anyone to have a firm definitive answer, but I do not rule out the possibility that one exists. I am asking here because of that choice not to rule out the possibility that an answer exists.

###Tangential: I found this article to put into better words than my own why prosecutorial immunity goes too far right now. This doesn't bear directly on my question, but it does explain why my question is important.