federal criminal provision does not give rise to civil liability or cause of action; dismissal of complaint required
How later courts described this case
- federal criminal provision does not give rise to civil liability or cause of action; dismissal of complaint required
- analyzing “the Constitution’s structure, its history,” and extensive Supreme Court precedent’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 20-2192 MWF (MRW) Date December 3, 2020
Title Ventress v. Kilgore
Present: Hon. Michael R. Wilner
Veronica Piper n/a
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None present None present
Proceedings: ORDER RE: SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
This is a civil rights action. Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, filed a 40+ page
complaint (plus various exhibits) that appears to seek redress from various state agencies
that administer child support or child welfare in California, Texas, and North Carolina.
Plaintiff paid the filing fee when he initiated the action. Nevertheless, the Court
preliminarily screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). That statute
allows a court to dismiss a case or claim at any time (even if the litigant paid the filing fee
in full) if an action does not plead claims with adequate specificity, seeks monetary relief
from immune parties, or otherwise does not comply with the law.
Based on the Court’s review of Plaintiff's Complaint, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that Plaintiff will show cause why the action should not be dismissed for the following
reasons:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 — Rule 8 requires a party to plead “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief” from a defendant. However, the rambling civil complaint consists
primarily of lengthy conclusory statements, snippets of legal terminology,
and assertions unrelated to Plaintiffs purported substantive claims. It is not
a “short and plain statement” in the manner of an understandable civil
complaint.
No Plausible Claim — A complaint may be dismissed under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 for failure to state a claim based on the lack of a
cognizable legal theory or the absence of facts alleged under such a theory.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 20-2192 MWF (MRW) Date December 3, 2020
Title Ventress v. Kilgore
complaint must contain enough facts to establish a “plausible” entitlement to
relief that is more than merely speculative. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). Plaintiff's complaint fails to clearly and concisely allege facts
against any of the specifically-named defendants.
i Sovereign Immunity — The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
and general principles of sovereign immunity prohibit suing a state or state
agency in federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court “has consistently held that
an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her
own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Edelman v. Jordan,
415 U.S. 651, 662-63 (1974). The immunity of states from lawsuits is a
“fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the states enjoyed before the
ratification of the Constitution and which they retain today.” Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706, 713 (1999) (analyzing “the Constitution’s structure, its history,”
and extensive Supreme Court precedent’). Plaintiff's complaint facially seeks
relief against various state officials and agencies. The action is clearly barred
by sovereign immunity.
Criminal Statutes — Federal criminal statutes do not allow for private causes
of action by a civil litigant. See, e.g., Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales,
545 U.S. 748, 767 n.12-13 (2005) (private citizen “lacks a judicially cognizable
interest” under federal statute criminalizing conduct); Allen v. Gold Country
Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006) (federal criminal provision does not
give rise to civil liability or cause of action; dismissal of complaint required).
To the extent that Plaintiff relies on civil rights provisions from the federal
criminal code [18 U.S.C. § 242 and 245 (Docket # 1 at 20)], those statutes will
not support any private right of action.
Venue — 28 U.S.C. § 1319(b) provides that a litigant may bring a civil action
in the federal judicial district in which all defendants reside, or in the district
in which “a substantial part of the events” underlying the claims occurred.
Plaintiffs conclusory claims — especially against the Texas and North
Carolina parties — are far too unclear to lead to a finding that venue of
Plaintiffs claims against them is appropriate in Southern California.
kk *
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 20-2192 MWF (MRW) Date December 3, 2020
Title Ventress v. Kilgore
Plaintiff is therefore ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed
before service on any party. Plaintiff may discharge this order by submitting (a) an
explanation (not to exceed five pages) citing appropriate authority that supports the
validity of each of the claims plus (b) a First Amended Complaint that complies with the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs submission will be due by January 4, 2021.
Alternatively, Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss the action in its entirety with
no further consequence.
Failure to comply with this order will result in a reeommendation that the
action be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied
Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2019).