(PC) Kidwell v. Cisneros

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 25, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-00290
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JASON HARPER, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00290-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 13 v. ) FILED ON MARCH 23, 2022

14 THERESA CISNEROS, et al., ) (ECF No. 5) )

15 Defendants. ) ) 16 )

17 Plaintiff Jason Harper is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on March 10, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the Court ordered 20 Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) 21 However, on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice contending that the Court inappropriately 22 interpreted and opened this action as civil rights complaint instead of a criminal complaint. (ECF No. 23 5.) Although Plaintiff contends that he wished to bring this action as a criminal complaint under 24 several California Penal Code Sections, Plaintiff is advised that the penal code is a criminal statute and 25 does not provide for a private right of action against Defendants. “With rare, limited exceptions, none 26 of which applies to § 1983 actions, federal law does not allow a private citizen to bring a criminal 27 prosecution against another citizen. Criminal actions are initiated by the state, not by private citizens.” 28 Lipsey v. Reddy, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC), 2017 WL 4811723, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 1 |} 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO- BAM (PC), 2017 WL 5070338 2 || (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) (noting that 3 || Supreme Court rarely implies a private right of action under a criminal statute.) Therefore, Plaintiff 4 |} cannot bring a criminal action under § 1983 against Defendants for violation of the California Penal 5 || Code. See Turnbough v. Hernandez, No. 1:17-cv-01465-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 3637026, at *4 (E.D. 6 || Cal. July 30, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM, 2018 WL 7 5023388 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018). Furthermore, based on a cursory review of the complaint, Plainti 8 alleging several retaliation (and other related) claims against prison officials, and such claims are 9 || appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.! (ECF No. 1.) Indeed, challenges to conditions of 10 || confinement by state prisoners are appropriately brought pursuant § 1983. See Nelson v. Campbell, 11 ||541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[C]onstitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner 12 || confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core and may 13 || be brought pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) 14 || Accordingly, Plaintiff's request that this action be reclassified as a criminal complaint is DENIED. 15 16 ||IT IS SO ORDERED. Al (re 17 || Dated: _March 25, 2022 OF 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ||! By this statement, the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff's claims raised in the complaint.