MacCracken v. Tanakegowma

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided December 19, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-01946·Unknown

Opinion

1 JL 2 WO 3 4 5 8 9 Chad MacCracken, No. CV 22-01946-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 Hilario Tanakegowma, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 I. Procedural History 16 On November 15, 2022, Plaintiff Chad MacCracken, who is not in custody, filed a 17 pro se civil rights Complaint and a non-prisoner Application to Proceed In District Court 18 without Prepaying Fees or Costs. In a November 18, 2022, the Court granted the 19 Application and dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff had failed 20 to state a claim. The Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint that cured 21 the deficiencies identified in the Order. 22 On December 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (Doc. 6), 23 purporting to seek relief under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. The Court will dismiss the First 24 Amended Complaint with leave to amend. 25 II. Statutory Screening of In Forma Pauperis Complaints 26 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to review complaints 27 brought by all plaintiffs who are proceeding in forma pauperis and must dismiss a 28 complaint or portion thereof if the plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or 1 malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 2 from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 3 A pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 4 pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (emphasis added). While Rule 8 does 5 not demand detailed factual allegations, “it demands more than an unadorned, the- 6 defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 7 (2009). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 8 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. 9 “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 10 claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 11 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content 12 that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the 13 misconduct alleged.” Id. “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for 14 relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 15 experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. Thus, although a plaintiff’s specific factual 16 allegations may be consistent with a constitutional claim, a court must assess whether there 17 are other “more likely explanations” for a defendant’s conduct. Id. at 681. 18 But as the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has instructed, courts 19 must “continue to construe pro se filings liberally.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 20 (9th Cir. 2010). A “complaint [filed by a pro se plaintiff] ‘must be held to less stringent 21 standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 22 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)). 23 If the Court determines that a pleading could be cured by the allegation of other 24 facts, a pro se litigant is entitled to an opportunity to amend a complaint before dismissal 25 of the action. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127-29 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 26 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but 27 because it may possibly be amended to state a claim, the Court will dismiss it with leave 28 to amend. 1 III. First Amended Complaint 2 In his two-count First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff sues the La Paz County Board 3 of Supervisors and the Town of Quartzsite. Plaintiff asserts claims of threats to his safety. 4 He seeks monetary relief and return of his property. 5 In Count One, Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2022, Defendants came to 6 Plaintiff’s home and kidnapped him. Plaintiff asserts Defendants returned on multiple 7 occasions and “took more unknown belongings.” Plaintiff claims “[t]hey” conspired 8 against him and “held [him] while saying [he]was held on cases and 7500 bond,” which is 9 “not evidenced in the record.” 10 In Count Two, Plaintiff alleges that on August 17, 2022, Defendants kidnapped, 11 tortured, and robbed him “while dressed like, acting like, and claiming to be government 12 representatives.” 13 As his injury for both counts, Plaintiff alleges his “live body” was kidnapped, 14 tortured, and robbed. 15 IV. Failure to State a Claim 16 Plaintiff’s purported claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 are not cognizable in a 17 civil rights action. Section 241 is a federal criminal statute that concerns “conspiracy 18 against rights” and does not create a civil duty of care. Moreover, § 241 does not give rise 19 to a private right of action. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) 20 (finding no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242); Kelly v. Rockefeller, 21 No. 02-3114, 69 F. App’x 414, 415-16 (10th Cir. 2003) (no private right of action under 22 18 U.S.C. §§ 241). Similarly, section 242 is a federal criminal statute that concerns 23 deprivation of rights under color of law. The statute makes it a crime for any person acting 24 under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause 25 to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected 26 by the Constitution and laws of the United States. It does not create a civil duty of care or 27 a private right of action. Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092. 28 Plaintiff does not assert any other basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Thus, the Court 1 will dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. 2 V. Leave to Amend 3 Within 30 days, Plaintiff may submit a second amended complaint to cure the 4 deficiencies outlined above. The Clerk of Court will mail Plaintiff a court-approved form 5 to use for filing a second amended complaint. Although Plaintiff is not in custody, the 6 Court encourages him to use the court-approved form to assist him with coherently 7 presenting his claims. 8 Plaintiff must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “Second 9 Amended Complaint.” The second amended complaint must be retyped or rewritten in its 10 entirety and may not incorporate any part of the original Complaint or First Amended 11 Complaint by reference. Plaintiff may include only one claim per count. 12 A second amended complaint supersedes the original Complaint and First Amended 13 Complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal

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

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

MacCracken v. Tanakegowma (MacCracken v. Tanakegowma) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Lopez v. Smith
203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)