Goodyear v. Department of Justice

District of Columbia

Goodyear v. Department of Justice

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 2, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2013-1906

StatusPublished

This text of Goodyear v. Department of Justice (Goodyear v. Department of Justice) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodyear v. Department of Justice, (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

UNITEI) sTATEs I)ISTRICT coURT DEC ' 2 2013 FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA c%¢:rrg icgdrst.hos;z|r;;_zl az sankwp:¢y 9 c of columbia GREGoRY s. GooDYEAR, ) Plaintiff, § v. § civil Action No. /.?~ / 706 DEPARTMENT oF JUSTICE, er az., § Defendants. l MEMoRANDuM oPINIoN

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

Plaintiff appears to allege a conspiracy among a Florida judge, the Lee County State Attomey’s Office, and officers of the Cape Coral Police Department to deprive him of his civil rights. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 842. All ofthe named defendants, however, are federal agencies or officials to whom § 1983 does not apply. See Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law."); see also District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 425 (1973) (stating that "actions of the Federal Government and its officers are at least facially exempt" from the proscriptions of § 1983). Plaintiff fares no better with his purported claims under criminal law, as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes. See McCray v. Hola'er, 391 F. App’x 887 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

(concluding that "district court correctly held that there is no private right of action under 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242"); Hernandez v. District ofColumbia, 845 F. Supp. 2d 112, 116 (D.D.C.

2012) (dismissing claims "under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 . . . as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes").

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

. k , ., United States District Judge DATE; ll w 5/ 3 g "

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILED

UNITEI) sTATEs I)ISTRICT coURT DEC ' 2 2013 FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA c%¢:rrg icgdrst.hos;z|r;;_zl az sankwp:¢y 9 c of columbia GREGoRY s. GooDYEAR, ) Plaintiff, § v. § civil Action No. /.?~ / 706 DEPARTMENT oF JUSTICE, er az., § Defendants. l MEMoRANDuM oPINIoN

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

Plaintiff appears to allege a conspiracy among a Florida judge, the Lee County State Attomey’s Office, and officers of the Cape Coral Police Department to deprive him of his civil rights. He brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 842. All ofthe named defendants, however, are federal agencies or officials to whom § 1983 does not apply. See Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law."); see also District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418, 425 (1973) (stating that "actions of the Federal Government and its officers are at least facially exempt" from the proscriptions of § 1983). Plaintiff fares no better with his purported claims under criminal law, as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes. See McCray v. Hola'er, 391 F. App’x 887 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

(concluding that "district court correctly held that there is no private right of action under 18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242"); Hernandez v. District ofColumbia, 845 F. Supp. 2d 112, 116 (D.D.C.

2012) (dismissing claims "under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, and 245 . . . as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes").

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

. k , ., United States District Judge DATE; ll w 5/ 3 g "

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goodyear v. Department of Justice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodyear-v-department-of-justice-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack