MacCracken v. Tanakegowma

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedNovember 18, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-01946
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
MacCracken v. Tanakegowma, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Chad MacCracken, No. CV 22-01946-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Hilario Tanakegowma, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Plaintiff Chad MacCracken, who is not in custody,1 has filed a pro se civil rights 16 Complaint (Doc. 1) and a non-prisoner Application to Proceed In District Court without 17 Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Complaint with leave to 18 amend. 19 I. Application to Proceed 20 In his Application to Proceed, Plaintiff indicates he has insufficient funds to pay the 21 filing fee for this action. The Court, in its discretion, will grant Plaintiff’s Application to 22 Proceed. Plaintiff will not be required to pay the filing fee. 23 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Complaints 24 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review complaints 25 brought by all plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis and must dismiss a 26 27 1 Plaintiff is charged in La Paz County Superior Court case #S-1500-CR- 202200108, with one count each of theft and trafficking in stolen property. On September 28 19, 2022, he was released on his own recognizance. See https://apps.supremecourt.az.gov/publicaccess/caselookup.aspx (search by case number S- 1500-CR-202200108 in La Paz County Superior Court) (last accessed Nov. 16, 2022). 1 complaint or portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or 2 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 3 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 4 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 5 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 6 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 7 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 8 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 10 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 11 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 12 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 13 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 14 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 15 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 16 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 17 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 18 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 19 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 20 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 21 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se litigant] ‘must be held to less stringent 22 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 23 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 24 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 25 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 26 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 27 Plaintiff’s Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but because it may 28 possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave to amend. 1 III. Complaint 2 In his two-count Complaint, Plaintiff sues Sergeant Hilario Tanakegowma, 3 Samantha Penninger, and Tiffany Dyer. Plaintiff purports to assert claims pursuant to 18 4 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. He seeks monetary relief and a restraining order to prevent 5 Defendant Tanakegowma “from unlawfully attacking [Plaintiff] sui juris.” 6 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that from August to October 2022, Defendants 7 “conspire[d] against the live body of [Plaintiff]” and that Plaintiff was kidnapped, tortured, 8 and ransomed for 30 days. Plaintiff claims Defendants knowingly, willingly, and 9 maliciously threatened, intimidated, and injured him, causing irreparable harm and leading 10 to the displacement of his family. 11 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2022, Defendants knowingly and 12 willfully violated 18 U.S.C. § 242 when, “disguised” as law enforcement. Defendants 13 trespassed onto private property that Plaintiff rents. Plaintiff claims Defendants used their 14 “armed advantage” on a “peaceful un-armed people to kidnap the live body of [Plaintiff].” 15 Plaintiff contends Defendants used assets purchased with grant monies to attack, threaten, 16 and ultimately kidnap “the live body of [Plaintiff],” causing irreparable harm. 17 IV. Failure to State a Claim 18 Plaintiff’s purported claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are not cognizable in a 19 civil rights action. Section 241 is a federal criminal statute that concerns “conspiracy 20 against rights” and does not create a civil duty of care. Moreover, § 241 does not give rise 21 to a private right of action. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 22 (finding no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242); Kelly v. Rockefeller, 23 No. 02-3114, 69 F. App’x 414, 415-16 (10th Cir. 2003) (no private right of action under 24 18 U.S.C. §§ 241). Similarly, section 242 is a federal criminal statute that concerns 25 deprivation of rights under color of law. The statute makes it a crime for any person acting 26 under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause 27 to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected 28 by the Constitution and laws of the United States. It does not create a civil duty of care or 1 a private right of action. Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092. 2 Plaintiff does not assert any other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Court 3 will dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. 4 V. Leave to Amend 5 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a first amended complaint to cure the 6 deficiencies outlined above. Although Plaintiff is not in custody, the Court recommends 7 that Plaintiff use the court-approved form to assist him with coherently presenting his 8 claims.

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

Related

Rizzo v. Goode
423 U.S. 362 (Supreme Court, 1976)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hebbe v. Pliler
627 F.3d 338 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kelly v. Rockefeller
69 F. App'x 414 (Tenth Circuit, 2003)
Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe
616 F.2d 1089 (Ninth Circuit, 1980)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MacCracken v. Tanakegowma, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maccracken-v-tanakegowma-azd-2022.