no private cause of action inherent in federal criminal statutes defining 11 || civil rights violations
How later courts described this case
- no private cause of action inherent in federal criminal statutes defining 11 || civil rights violations
- 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 provide no private right of action and cannot g || form basis for civil suit
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 IRA JEROME ROSS,
Case No. 22-00832 BLF
12 P laintiff,
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
13 v.
14
TIM COOK, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18 On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten document
19 which was construed as an attempt to file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
20 1983.1 Dkt. No. 1. On the same day, the Clerk sent Plaintiff a notice informing Plaintiff
21 that he needed to either pay the filing fee or file an In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) application
22 within twenty-eight days to avoid dismissal. Dkt. No. 3. The deadline has passed, and
23 Plaintiff has failed to file an IFP application or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the matter
24 is subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee.
25 Plaintiff has filed several letters stating that the matter is a “criminal complaint” to
26
27
1 This matter was reassigned to this Court on March 1, 2022, after Plaintiff failed to file
1 || report federal crimes, and that he wishes the matter be filed in criminal court. Dkt. Nos. 7,
2 || 8. According to the complaint, Plaintiff claims Tim Cook and the Board of Directors of
3 || Apple, Inc., are responsible for theft of intellectual property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
4 || 641. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff is advised that the decision to file or bring criminal charges
5 || generally rests in the prosecutor’s discretion, not the court. United States v. Batchelder,
6 || 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). Criminal statutes generally do not provide a private cause of
7 || action or basis for civil penalties or liability. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089,
8 || 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 provide no private right of action and cannot
g || form basis for civil suit); Pawelek v. Paramount Studios Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1082, 1083
10 || (N.D. TL 1983) (no private cause of action inherent in federal criminal statutes defining
11 || civil rights violations). Therefore, this action must be also dismissed for failure to state a
2 cognizable claim.
E 13 Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and the complaint does not state a
S 14 || cognizable claim, this action is DISMISSED.
3 15 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.
16 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 17 || Dated: _March 28,2022. __ hot amma)
5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ dis-ifp
26
27