# Singleton

> District Court, E.D. California · April 3, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379433

## Case

- **Full name:** Steven Quinn Singleton v. Merit System Protection Board
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** April 3, 2026
- **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/11379433

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 STEVEN QUINN SINGLETON, Case No. 1:26-cv-02018-SKO

10 Plaintiff, FIRST SCREENING ORDER
11 v. ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO:
12 (1) FILE A FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT;
13
MERIT SYSTEM PROTECTION BOARD,
(2) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE
14 Defendant. WISHES TO STAND ON HIS
COMPLAINT; OR
15
(3) FILE A NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY
16 DISMISSAL
17 (Doc. 1)
18 THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
19
20
21 On March 13, 2026, Plaintiff Steven Quinn Singleton, proceeding pro se and in forma
22 pauperis, filed a civil action. (Doc. 1.)
23 Plaintiff’s complaint is now before the Court for screening. Upon review, the Court
24 concludes that the complaint fails to state any cognizable claims.
25 Plaintiff has the following options as to how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended
26 complaint, which the Court will screen in due course. Alternatively, Plaintiff may file a statement
27 with the Court stating that he wants to stand on this complaint and have it reviewed by an assigned
28 district judge, in which case the Court will issue findings and recommendations consistent with this
1 order. Lastly, Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
2 41(a)(1)(A). If Plaintiff does not file anything, the Court will recommend that the case be dismissed.
3 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT AND STANDARD
4 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen
5 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty
6 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
7 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
8 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district
9 court has discretion to dismiss in forma pauperis complaint); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193
10 (9th Cir. 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines
11 that a complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the
12 deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130
13 (9th Cir. 2000).
14 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading
15 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and
16 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
17 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a
18 cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
19 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A
20 complaint may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim based on (1) the lack of a
21 cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v.
22 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). A court is ordinarily limited to the main
23 pages of the complaint in determining whether to dismiss a complaint. See Van Buskirk v. Cable
24 News Network, Inc., 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, the plaintiff must allege a minimum
25 factual and legal basis in their complaint for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair
26 notice of what the plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v.
27 U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th
28 Cir. 1991).
1 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept
2 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
3 The Court, however, need not accept the plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
4 678. “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops
5 short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
6 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted).
7 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
8 Plaintiff brings this action against the “Merit System Protection Board”(“MSPB”). (Doc.
9 1.) Asserting that federal question is the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff cites “Title 18
10 U.S.C. Section 242, 371, 1001, 1343, 1519” as the federal statutes at issue in the case.
11 Fundamentally, Plaintiff’s claims seem to arise from his assertion that the MSPB mishandled his
12 appeal of denial of federal employment as a “Homeland Defender.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff’s entire
13 statement of the claim provides:
14 Petitioner applied for a role titled “Homeland Defender” and his application was placed
into a pool where it is not discarded but may be subject to inaction, delay, or poor
15 execution, as has happened before when applying to Federal and State employment.
After Petitioner’s application was shuffled aside, he appealed to the MSPB. The first
16 petition was deleted from e-filing system. The second petition was altered to the point
of appearing nonsensical. In a similar fashion to the judicial action on the property at
17 1265 Tuckawanna Dr SW, Atlanta, GA 30311, he received two orders denying
consideration of his filings. With outcomes from an administrative judge, Petitioner
18 submitted an emergency filing to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The
filings were not sent to a judge. They were sent to the MSPB, furthering conflict of
19 interest. The agency docketing ignored Petitioner’s fee waiver filing and requested
payment. Further, the timelines for the filings docketed by the agency extend beyond
20 the typical review period. The MSPB conspired for systematic oppression.
21 (Id. at 4.)
22 As relief, Plaintiff requests that the Court (1) “exercise the Judicial power to review the
23 filings submitted to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and administer a comprehensive
24 framework of improvement to the federal agency operations, filing processes, and appropriate
25 compensation for the loss of actual and projected income and for deprivation of rights”; and (2)
26 review the MSPB’s “complaint system” “for effectiveness and efficiency.” (Doc. 1 at 4.)
27 III. DISCUSSION
28 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint does not state any
1 cognizable claims. Plaintiff shall be provided with the legal standards that appear to apply to his
2 claims and will be granted an opportunity to file an amended complaint to correct the identified
3 deficiencies.
4 A. Rule 8
5 Pursuant to Rule 8, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
6 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Detailed factual allegations are
7 not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere
8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). Plaintiff must set
9 forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
10 face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal
11 conclusions are not. Id.; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556–57; Moss, 572 F.3d at 969.
12 Here, Plaintiff’s complaint is short, but it is not a plain statement of his claims showing that
13 he is entitled to relief. He cites several provisions of Title 18 of the United States Code as the basis
14 for jurisdiction, but he does not allege how the MSPB violated those statutes. As currently pleaded,
15 Plaintiff’s complaint does not contain enough factual details to permit the Court to draw the
16 reasonable inference that the named defendant is liable under federal law for the misconduct alleged.
17 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
18 In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to conform to the requirements of Rule 8. Plaintiff must
19 set forth factual allegations against Defendant sufficient to state a claim. If Plaintiff elects to amend
20 his complaint, he must separate each claim, state the legal basis for the claim, and identify how the
21 facts alleged support and show that the defendant committed the violation asserted as the legal basis
22 for the claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The failure to do so shall result in dismissal of this action.
23 B. Legal Standards
24 In the event Plaintiff amends his complaint, the Court provides the following legal standards
25 that may be relevant to his action:
26 1. United States Code, Title 18
27 A citizen does not have authority to bring criminal charges. “Criminal proceedings, unlike
28 private civil proceedings, are public acts initiated and controlled by the Executive Branch.” Clinton
1 v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 718 (1997) (Breyer, J., concurring). Here, Plaintiff purports to bring claims
2 under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 (violation of civil rights under color of law), 371 (conspiracy to commit
3 offense or to defraud), 1001 (falsification of documents and making of false statements), 1343 (wire
4 fraud), and 1519 (obstruction of justice). (Doc. 1 at 3.) These provisions, however, are all criminal
5 statutes and thus provide no basis for civil liability. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 371, 1001, 1343, 1519;
6 Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (Title 18 U.S.C. § 242 provides
7 no basis for civil liability); Davis v. Ramen, No. 1:06-cv-01216-AWI-DLB (PC), 2008 WL
8 3970869, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2008) (“Nor does 18 U.S.C. § 371 contain a private right of
9 action.”) (citing Rockefeller v. U.S. Court of Appeals Office, for Tenth Circuit Judges, 248 F. Supp.
10 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2003)); Dowdell v. Sacramento Hous. & Redevelopment Agency, No. 2:11-CV-00409
11 JAM, 2011 WL 837046, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2011) (“Because Section 1001 does not provide a
12 private cause of action, plaintiff’s claims premised on that criminal statute should be dismissed with
13 prejudice.”); Hacker v. Hacker, No. 1:15-cv-01258 JAM MJS, 2015 WL 8780561, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
14 Dec. 15, 2015) (“[C]ourts have consistently found that mail and wire fraud statutes do not confer a
15 private right of action.”); Crago v. Knacke, No. 2:19-CV-02509 MCE AC, 2020 WL 3073771, at
16 *4 (E.D. Cal. June 10, 2020) (Title 18 U.S.C. § 1519 does not provide a private right of action); see
17 also Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (criminal provisions provide no basis
18 for civil liability). As such, Plaintiff’s citations to these criminal statutes cannot support claims for
19 relief.
20 2. Judicial Review of MSPB or Federal Circuit Decisions
21 To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to appeal a decision of the MSPB that is not based on
22 discrimination or whistleblower retaliation (as none is presently alleged here), the United States
23 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—not this Court—would have exclusive jurisdiction over
24 Plaintiff’s appeal.1 Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 6, 11–13 (2012) (“The Federal Circuit
25 has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over appeals from a final decision of the MSPB.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
26
1 There are limited exceptions, however, when the employee files a “mixed case,” Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41, 44–
27 46 (2012) (defining a “mixed case,” which must be filed in federal district court), or a whistleblower retaliation claim,
5 U.S.C. § 1221(a), (h) (Whistleblower Protection Act claims must be appealed to the MSPB, with right to seek judicial
28 review from circuit courts of appeals). As observed above, neither applies to Plaintiff’s allegations as currently pleaded,
1 1295(a)(9)); see also 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) (judicial review of an MSPB decision “shall be” in
2 the Federal Circuit). To the extent Plaintiff seeks “review” an action undertaken by the Federal
3 Circuit, this Court has no “judicial power” to do so (see Doc. 1 at 4). See In re Sasson, 424 F.3d
4 864, 871 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[F]ederal district courts are courts of original, not appellate, jurisdiction.”
5 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332)); see also Peterson v. Brooks, No. 07–2442, 2008 WL 4072700,
6 at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 29, 2008) (“To the extent that petitioner seeks to reopen the judgment of the
7 Third Circuit, the motion is denied. This Court has no jurisdiction to review orders of the Court of
8 Appeals.”).
9 C. Leave to Amend
10 The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it fails to state any cognizable
11 claims. Under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “the court should freely give
12 leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Accordingly, the Court will provide Plaintiff with time
13 to file an amended complaint, so he can provide additional factual allegations and attempt to
14 articulate cognizable claims over which this Court has jurisdiction. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
15 1126-30 (9th Cir. 2000).
16 Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Plaintiff is
17 cautioned that an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints filed in an action, Lacey v.
18 Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012), and must be “complete in itself without
19 reference to the prior or superseded pleading,” E.D. Cal. Local Rule 220. Therefore, in an amended
20 complaint, as in an original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be
21 sufficiently alleged. The amended complaint should be clearly and boldly titled “First Amended
22 Complaint,” refer to the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of perjury.
23 Plaintiff should note that although he has been given the opportunity to amend, it is not for the
24 purpose of changing the nature of this suit or adding unrelated claims. George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
25 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (no “buckshot” complaints).
26 Plaintiff has a choice on how to proceed. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint if he
27 believes that additional true factual allegations would state cognizable claims over which this Court
28 has jurisdiction. If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen that complaint in due
1 course. Alternatively, Plaintiff may choose to stand on his complaint subject to the Court issuing
2 findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge consistent with this order. Lastly,
3 Plaintiff may file a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).
4 IV. ORDER
5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
6 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall either:
7 a. File an amended complaint;
8 b. Notify the Court in writing that he wants to stand on this original complaint;
9 or
10 c. File a notice of voluntary dismissal.
11 2. If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall caption the amended
12 complaint “First Amended Complaint” and refer to case number 1:26-cv-02018-
13 SKO.
14 3. Failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of this action.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16

17 Dated: April 2, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379433. Public record. Not legal advice.