# PETERY

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · April 25, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852341

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 25, 2025
- **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/10852341

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not create a civil cause of action
- finding that 18 U.S.C. § 242 does not create a civil cause of action

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_____________________________________

IN RE: PAUL PETERY, :
Plaintiff, : No. 5:25-cv-0116
:
:
_____________________________________

O P I N I O N

Joseph F. Leeson, Jr. April 25, 2025
United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
As best the Court can discern, and after affording the Amended Complaint a liberal
construction1, Plaintiff alleges that United Services Automobile Association acted in bad faith
when it handled his claim following a motor vehicle accident.2 See ECF No. 9, Am. Compl. at
82-83. From this interaction, Plaintiff has extrapolated industrywide fraud in the insurance field.
See id. Upon reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court expressed skepticism as to its ability
to hear the case and ordered that the Plaintiff show cause as to why the matter should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See ECF No. 10. Having reviewed Plaintiff’s
Response, see ECF No. 11, the Court will dismiss the Amended Complaint without prejudice.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction. See Bender v.
Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “[T]hey have only the power that is

1 Courts have an obligation to construe the filings of pro se litigants liberally. Giles v.
Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009).
2 It also appears that these accidents were the subject of prior litigation previously
dismissed by this Court. See Petery v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV 23-604, 2024 WL 291311
(E.D. Pa. Jan. 25, 2024).
1
authorized by Article III of the Constitution and the statutes enacted by Congress pursuant
thereto.” Id. Most commonly, this takes the form of diversity jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a), or federal-question jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction
extends the jurisdiction of district courts to “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of the United States.” Id. Generally, “a case arises under federal law when federal

law creates the cause of action asserted.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 257 (2013) (citing Am.
Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916)).
“Subject matter jurisdiction defines the court’s authority to hear a given type of case.”
United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 828 (1984). “Without jurisdiction the court cannot
proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist,
the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868).
III. ANALYSIS
The Court has an inherent authority to control its docket in a manner so as to “prevent

undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion.” Hewlett v. Davis, 844
F.2d 109, 114 (3d Cir. 1988). The Court also has an obligation to assure itself of subject matter
jurisdiction over any given suit, and, “[i]f the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-
matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Since Plaintiff
has brought suit against 887 Defendants, for all of which summons must be issued and service
must be made, these powers urge the Court to make an early assessment of its jurisdiction.
Having done so, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case.
Since Plaintiff invokes the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, he bears the burden of
proving its existence. See Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 310 F. Supp. 3d 467, 469 (D. Del.

2
2018). In response to the Court’s show cause Order, Plaintiff cursorily notes five “Federal Laws
[he] believes have been violated” in the course of events underlying his Amended Complaint.
They are: 1) 18 U.S.C. § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law; 2) “Federal Trade
Commission Act 15 U.S.C. § § 41-58, mainly 45(a)(1)”; 3) 18 U.S.C. § 1341 – Frauds and
swindles; 4) 18 U.S.C. § 1033 - Crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of

insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce; and 5) “The Sherman Act of 1890.” He
thus invokes the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.3
At the outset, the Court notes that there is an important distinction between “failing to
raise a substantial federal question for jurisdictional purposes . . . and failing to state a claim for
relief on the merits.” Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015). Here, the Court takes care
not to convert this jurisdictional question into a merits one. That is because it is inappropriate to
dismiss a case for want of jurisdiction “because the legal theory alleged is probably false.”
Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1987) (emphasis added).
Rather, “[d]ismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the

federal claim is proper only when the claim is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior
decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal
controversy.’” See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). In a similar vein,
a district court may lack subject matter jurisdiction over a suit premised on a federal claim where
that claim “clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose of obtaining
jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)).

3 Consistent with the wide-ranging scope of the alleged conspiracy, Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint names 887 Defendants, many of which are residents of Pennsylvania, thereby
depriving this Court of diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
3
Here, the Court finds that the instant Amended Complaint meets this standard because
four of the five federal laws cited do not supply a private cause of action and the fifth is wholly
immaterial to any events described in the Amended Complaint. Laws one, three, and four are
criminal statutes. Criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a basis for civil liability. See
Brown v. City of Philadelphia Office of Human Res., 735 F. App'x 55, 56 (3d Cir. 2018) (per

curiam) (“Brown alleges that the defendants violated various criminal statutes, but most do not
provide a private cause of action.”) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated that,
unless specifically provided for, federal criminal statutes rarely create private rights of action.
Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 377 (1958) (stating that where a statute
“contains only penal sanctions for violation of it provisions; in the absence of a clear expression
of congressional intent to the contrary, these sanctions should under familiar principles be
considered exclusive, rather than supplemented by civil sanctions of a distinct statute”); Cent.
Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (“We
have been quite reluctant to infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition alone.”).

The fact that a federal statute has been violated and some person harmed does not automatically
give rise to a private cause of action for the injured person. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442
U.S. 560, 568 (1979); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 689 (1979).
More particularly, the criminal statutes cited here do not give rise to a private cause of
action. See Molina v. City of Lancaster, 159 F. Supp. 2d 813 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (finding that 18
U.S.C. § 242 does not create a civil cause of action); see also Johnson v. RovMain, Inc., No. CV
22-5219, 2023 WL 2723110 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2023) (finding that 18 U.S.C. § 1341 does not
provide a private cause of action); Bardes v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:11CV340,
2011 WL 1790816 (M.D.N.C. May 10, 2011) (finding that 18 U.S.C. § 1033 does not provide a

4
private cause of action.) Nor does the cited provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act
provide a private cause of action. See Gainer v. Lynn, No. CV 25-907-BAH, 2025 WL 1068052
(D. Md. Apr. 9, 2025) (finding that 15 U.S.C. § 45 does not provide a private cause of action).
Of the statutes cited, only the Sherman Antitrust Act supplies a private cause of action.
However, the Amended Complaint simply features no factual predicate from which any

reasonable mind could infer a cause of action arising under the Act. This is not an instance in
which Plaintiff’s claim will fail under some construction of law but succeed under another, see
Steel Co., 523 U.S. at 89, or in which Plaintiff has omitted a fact necessary to make out a federal
cause of action. Rather, the Sherman Antitrust Act “clearly appears to be immaterial” from any
possible construction of the events outlined in the Amended Complaint “and made solely for the
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting Bell, 327 U.S. at 682). Accordingly, the Court
finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case and will dismiss the Amended
Complaint without prejudice.4
A separate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

4 Because the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, Plaintiff may file a
Second Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined herein. In the event he chooses to
do so, he is advised that he should clearly identify each defendant, the conduct of each defendant
allegedly harming him, and the relief he seeks, setting forth the facts relating to each defendant
and to each claim.
5

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10852341. Public record. Not legal advice.