Kordan v. Rigg
Decision Date | 23 July 2021 |
Docket Number | 21-cv-11419 |
Parties | ROBERT L. KORDAN, Plaintiff, v. BARBARA RIGG, et al, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT
For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the case be sua sponte DISMISSED.
On June 7, 2021, Plaintiff Robert L. Kordan filed the instant pro se Complaint against 11 Defendants. (ECF No. 1). On June 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington referred all pretrial matters to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff applied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) (ECF No. 2) and his application was granted on July 15, 2021. (ECF No. 6.)
In his Complaint, Plaintiff lists several U.S. codes, and some Michigan state codes, as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Citing these various statutes, Plaintiff complains that “the defendants took my wife[, ] lied [and] said she died[, ] gave me false documents[, ] and committed several U.S. code violations in order to hide the truth.” (ECF No. 1, PageID.6.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were involved in a plot wherein his wife was declared deceased, but, Plaintiff alleges, he is unsure as to whether she actually passed away, and if she is still alive, Defendants are keeping his wife from him. (See Id. at PageID.9-13.) Plaintiff seeks relief in the form of the following information: (Id. at PageID.7.)
Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, subjecting his claim to the screening standards in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Since 1892, federal courts have possessed statutory power to permit civil actions IFP. See Bruce v. Samuels, 577 U.S. 82, 85 (2016). That power, presently codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is intended to ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system by allowing them to proceed without advancing the litigation fees and costs. Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1981).
Congress recognized that “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). To counteract these incentives, Congress crafted a screening procedure that requires the court to sua sponte review the complaints of all plaintiffs proceeding IFP and dismiss any before service of process if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
When a plaintiff proceeds without counsel, the court must liberally construe the complaint and hold it to a less stringent standard than a similar pleading drafted by an attorney. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even pro se complaints must satisfy basic pleading requirements. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989).
Plaintiff cites several federal and state statutes in support of his Complaint. However, none of these statutes provide this Court with jurisdiction over the matter. I will address each in turn.
Diaz v. Perez, No. 16-11860, 2016 WL 6871233, at *5 (D. Mass. Nov. 21, 2016) ( ). “To the extent Diaz asserts claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1951, 1956, this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction because these criminal statutes provide no right of action for private parties.” Diaz, 2016 WL 6871233, at *5. Because this statute provides no private right of action, any claims based on it should be dismissed.
In Milam v. Southaven Police Department, the plaintiff alleged a claim under the Federal Kidnapping Act (18 USCS § 1201(a)). However, Milam v. Southaven Police Dept., 2015 WL 1637937, *7 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 13, 2015) (citing Saro v. Brown, 11 Fed.Appx. 387, 388 (6th Cir.2001); Collins v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., No. 3:11-cv-00264, 2012 WL 610191, at *4 (M. D. Tenn. Feb. 24, 2012); Hopson v. Shakes, No. 3:12CV-722-M, 2013 WL 1703862, at *2 (W. D. Ky. Apr. 19, 2013)). Milam, 2015 WL 1637937, at *7. Similarly, here, this statute provides no basis under which Plaintiff can properly bring his claims.
“The claims under 18 U.S.C. § 242 . . . fail because § 242 does not give rise to a private right of action.” Perkins v. Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceutical Co., No. 20-1200, 2021 WL 1392996, *2 ( ). “Because Plaintiffs cannot bring criminal charges against Defendants through a private lawsuit, and § 242 does not give rise to a civil cause of action, the claims raised under § 242 are legally frivolous and will be dismissed.” Perkins, 2021 WL 1392996, at *2. So too here, any claims brought under this statute should be dismissed.
“18 U.S.C. § 2[:] As the district court noted in its order granting [defendant] partial dismissal, there is no private right of action under this statute.” Hooker v. Hooker, No. 11-cv-02252, 2014 WL 2433985, at *9 (W.D. Tenn. May 28, 2014) ( )() . The same is true in this case, and claims brought under this statute should be dismissed.
Mathers v. HSBC Bank, No. 16-9572, 2018 WL 3831529, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 2018) ( ). As such, any claims Plaintiff, an individual citizen, brings under this code or statute must be dismissed.
Plaintiff cites 54 U.S.C. § 100722. This is under Title 54 of the U.S. Code, which is entitled National Park Service and Related Programs. This specific section, § 100722, refers to “liability” and, more specifically, “any person that destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any System unit resource[.]” Title 54 is a re-codified version of what was formerly the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). “The NHPA has been repealed and recodified at Title 54 of the United States Code, ‘except with respect to rights and duties that matured, penalties that were incurred, or proceedings that were begun before the date of enactment of [the recodification].'” Battle Mountain Band v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, No. 16-cv-0268, 2016 WL 4497756, n. 11 (D. Nev. Aug. 26, 2016) (citing PUB. L. NO. 113-287, § 7, 128 STAT. 3272, 3272-73 (2014)). In its prior form, “The NHPA itself does not provide for a private right of action.” Battle Mountain Band, 2016 WL 4497756, at *6 ( ). See also Dine Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell, No. 15-0209, 2015 WL 4997207, at *37-39 (D. New Mexico Aug. 14, 2015).
Regardless of whether the re-codified version of this act provides a private right of action, and the language of the statute reveals nothing to suggest that it does, any claim brought under this statute is nonetheless frivolous. Nothing in Plaintiff's Complaint refers to a national park or the use of national land or resources. As such I suggest any claims brought under this statute may rightly be dismissed as frivolous.
“A private individual may bring suit under a...
To continue reading
Request your trial