Walters v. Bank of America

District of Columbia

Walters v. Bank of America

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJune 8, 2009

DocketCivil Action No. 2009-1060

StatusPublished

This text of Walters v. Bank of America (Walters v. Bank of America) 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

Walters v. Bank of America, (D.D.C. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

FILED

.NN~a2m9

Clerk, U.S. District and

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Ban kruPtCY COU"tS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRIS WALTERS,

Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No.

09 1060 BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application, and will dismiss the complaint.

lt appears that plaintiff spent a portion of his disability benefits, which had been deposited in an account with Bank of America, to purchase tickets to travel by train and by bus. He alleges that he was hospitalized for treatment of deep vein thrombosis because of the carriers’ “failure to provide adequate leg space." Compl. at 3 (page number designated by the Court). Plaintiff charges defendants with deprivation of rights and criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 402. Id.

The Court will dismiss the complaint in its entirety because it fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. There is no private right of action under the criminal statutes cited. See generally Dz`amond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64-65 (l986) (noting that private citizens cannot compel enforcement of criminal law); see also Lynch v. Bulman, No. 06-1018, 2007 WL

29936l2, at *l (lOth Cir. Oct. l5, 2007) (per curiarn) (concluding that "[t]he district court

properly rejected [plaintiff’ s] claim that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 24l and 242 [because]

fay

[t]hese statutes do not provide him with a private cause of action"); Rockefeller v. Rehnquz`st, No.

03-5282, 2004 WL 210649, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 30, 2004) (per curiam) (affirining dismissal of complaint, in part, on the grounds of "the lack of a private cause of action under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 371"), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 870 (2004).

An Order consistent with this Memorandum is issued separately on this same date.

/\?Me/ ll M-

-/United States‘District Judge

DATE; go w Z@c?

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