United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Special Order 3-251, this pro se case has
been automatically referred for judicial screening. Based on
the relevant filings and applicable law, the plaintiff's
claims should be DISMISSED with prejudice.
March 22, 2018, Melvin McCormick (Plaintiff) filed suit
against Dallas Police Chief Renee Hall (Chief) and Officers
NFM Garrett, R.C. Harding, and NFN McClanahan (collectively
Defendants) for alleged harassment, racial discrimination,
and violation of his civil rights. (docs. 3 at
8 at 1-5.) He alleges violations of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 241, 242, 245, and 249, and 42 U.S.C. §
14141, and he seeks monetary damages in the amount of $50,
000, 000 and “issuance of a mandamus order to cease and
desist all discriminatory actions against [him].”
(docs. 3 at 3-7; 8 at 1-6.) No process has issued.
Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, his
complaint is subject to mandatory judicial screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). It provides for sua sponte
dismissal of the complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
Court finds it is frivolous or malicious, if it fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it
seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis
either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an
arguable basis in law when it is “based on an
indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at
327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted when it fails to plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim,
plaintiffs must allege facts sufficient to “raise the
right to relief above the speculative level.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Mere “labels and
conclusions” nor “a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action” suffice to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. Id. “While a
federal court must of course give due credit to the good
faith claims of the plaintiff, a court would be remiss in its
obligations if it accepted every claim of damages at face
value, no matter how trivial the underlying injury.”
Diefenthal v. C.A.B., 681 F.2d 1039, 1053 (5th Cir.
1982). Furthermore, under § 1915(e), a court is not
bound to accept without question the truth of a pro
se plaintiff's allegations. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).
generally alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 241,
242, 245, and 249.
241, 242, 245 and 249 are all criminal statutes that do not
provide a private right of action. See Chaney v. Races
and Aces, 590 Fed.Appx. 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2014)
(finding that §§ 241 and 242 are criminal statutes
that do not create a private right of action), citing Ali
v. Shabazz, 8 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1993); Williams v.
Tri-County Comm. Ctr, 452 F.2d 221, 223 n. 3 (5th Cir.
1971) (noting that §245 is a criminal statute that
confers no rights); Rhine v. McFarland, No.
3:15-CV-2185, 2015 WL 5432097, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 19,
2015) (collecting cases finding that as a criminal statute,
§ 249 does not give rise to a private right of action),
rec. adopted by 2015 WL 5398875 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14,
2015). Private citizens cannot enforce criminal statutes in a
civil action. Florance v. Buchmeyer, 500 F.Supp.2d
618, 626 (N.D. Tex. 2007). Nor does a citizen have a
constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted.
Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims under §§ 241,
242, 245, and 249 should be dismissed for failure to state a
42 U.S.C. § 14141
also sues under 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
Fifth Circuit has found that a claim under § 14141,
which allows a civil action to eliminate a pattern or
practice of unconstitutional conduct by governmental entities
and their employees, may only be brought by the Attorney
General. Chaney, 590 Fed.Appx. at 330. It does not
create a private cause of action by private citizens. See
Rodgers v. City of Dallas, No. 3:15-CV-01631-N, 2016 WL
9076232, at *2 n. 1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 12, 2016); Johnson v.
Dodson, No. 2:14-CV-00059-J, 2014 WL 4513380, at *4
(N.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2014); White v. City of Dallas,
No. 3:12-CV-2145-O, 2013 WL 821992, at *5-6 (N.D. Tex. Feb.
8, 2013), rec. adopted 2013 WL 840503 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 6,
2013); Knight v. City of Balch Springs, No.
3:11-CV-1122-B- BH, 2011 WL 3519938, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July
25, 2011), rec. adopted 2011 WL 3510877 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 10,
2011). Plaintiff's § 14141 claims should be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to
state a claim.