Ross v. Cook

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 28, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00832
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

11 IRA JEROME ROSS, Case No. 22-00832 BLF 12 P laintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 13 v.

14 TIM COOK, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 On January 31, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a handwritten document 19 which was construed as an attempt to file a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 20 1983.1 Dkt. No. 1. On the same day, the Clerk sent Plaintiff a notice informing Plaintiff 21 that he needed to either pay the filing fee or file an In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) application 22 within twenty-eight days to avoid dismissal. Dkt. No. 3. The deadline has passed, and 23 Plaintiff has failed to file an IFP application or pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the matter 24 is subject to dismissal for failure to pay the filing fee. 25 Plaintiff has filed several letters stating that the matter is a “criminal complaint” to 26

27 1 This matter was reassigned to this Court on March 1, 2022, after Plaintiff failed to file 1 || report federal crimes, and that he wishes the matter be filed in criminal court. Dkt. Nos. 7, 2 || 8. According to the complaint, Plaintiff claims Tim Cook and the Board of Directors of 3 || Apple, Inc., are responsible for theft of intellectual property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 || 641. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. Plaintiff is advised that the decision to file or bring criminal charges 5 || generally rests in the prosecutor’s discretion, not the court. United States v. Batchelder, 6 || 442 U.S. 114, 124 (1979). Criminal statutes generally do not provide a private cause of 7 || action or basis for civil penalties or liability. See, e.g., Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 8 || 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 provide no private right of action and cannot g || form basis for civil suit); Pawelek v. Paramount Studios Corp., 571 F. Supp. 1082, 1083 10 || (N.D. TL 1983) (no private cause of action inherent in federal criminal statutes defining 11 || civil rights violations). Therefore, this action must be also dismissed for failure to state a 2 cognizable claim. E 13 Because Plaintiff has not paid the filing fee and the complaint does not state a S 14 || cognizable claim, this action is DISMISSED. 3 15 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: _March 28,2022. __ hot amma) 5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ dis-ifp 26 27