# (PC) Kidwell v. Cisneros

> District Court, E.D. California · March 25, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10043506

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** March 25, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10043506

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that 3 || Supreme Court rarely implies a private right of action under a criminal statute.

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 JASON HARPER, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00290-SAB (PC)
)
12 Plaintiff, )
) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE
13 v. ) FILED ON MARCH 23, 2022

14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ) (ECF No. 5)
)

15 Defendants. )
)
16 )

17 Plaintiff Jason Harper is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
18 1983.
19 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on March 10, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the Court ordered
20 Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 3.)
21 However, on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice contending that the Court inappropriately
22 interpreted and opened this action as civil rights complaint instead of a criminal complaint. (ECF No.
23 5.) Although Plaintiff contends that he wished to bring this action as a criminal complaint under
24 several California Penal Code Sections, Plaintiff is advised that the penal code is a criminal statute and
25 does not provide for a private right of action against Defendants. “With rare, limited exceptions, none
26 of which applies to § 1983 actions, federal law does not allow a private citizen to bring a criminal
27 prosecution against another citizen. Criminal actions are initiated by the state, not by private citizens.”
28 Lipsey v. Reddy, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC), 2017 WL 4811723, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24,
1 |} 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO- BAM (PC), 2017 WL 5070338
2 || (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) (noting that
3 || Supreme Court rarely implies a private right of action under a criminal statute.) Therefore, Plaintiff
4 |} cannot bring a criminal action under § 1983 against Defendants for violation of the California Penal
5 || Code. See Turnbough v. Hernandez, No. 1:17-cv-01465-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 3637026, at *4 (E.D.
6 || Cal. July 30, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM, 2018 WL
7 5023388 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018). Furthermore, based on a cursory review of the complaint, Plainti
8 alleging several retaliation (and other related) claims against prison officials, and such claims are
9 || appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.! (ECF No. 1.) Indeed, challenges to conditions of
10 || confinement by state prisoners are appropriately brought pursuant § 1983. See Nelson v. Campbell,
11 ||541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner
12 || confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core and may
13 || be brought pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004)
14 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's request that this action be reclassified as a criminal complaint is DENIED.
15
16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED.
Al (re
17 || Dated: _March 25, 2022 OF
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 ||! By this statement, the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff's claims raised in the complaint.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10043506. Public record. Not legal advice.