Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06409-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

San Francisco Division

JOSEPH THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDALL SHAW, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06409-LB

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT JEFFREY 

SCARCELLO SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED

Re: ECF No. 1

Plaintiff Joseph Thomas brings this suit against defendants Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, 

Jeffrey Scarcello, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc.1

Mr. Thomas brings only one claim against Mr. Scarcello: a putative claim for violation of “the 

Civil Rights Act of 1968[,] 18 USC §5245(b)(2), the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement 

Act[,] 28 USC §994 note sec. 280003.”2 Mr. Thomas alleges that Mr. Scarcello used “fighting 

words” and various epithets against him and got into an altercation with him.3(Mr. Scarcello, for 

 

1

[Second] Amend. Compl. (“SAC”) – ECF No. 46. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case 

File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. Mr. 

Thomas also sued defendants Balwantsinh D. Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor, and Shree Jalaram LLC, but 

those defendants have been dismissed from the case. Order – ECF No. 82.

2 SAC – ECF No. 46 at 7.

3

Id. at 6 (¶ 13).

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 116 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 2
ORDER – No. 18-cv-06409-LB 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

his part, claims that Mr. Thomas was the one who assaulted him and that Mr. Thomas broke his 

nose.4)

A court may dismiss a plaintiff’s claims on its own initiative where the plaintiff does not state 

a valid, legally cognizable claim. Reed v. Lieurance, 863 F.3d 1196, 1207 (9th Cir. 2017). It does 

not appear to the court that Mr. Thomas has pleaded a valid claim against Mr. Scarcello. First, 

there is no such statute as 18 U.S.C. § 5245. Second, 28 U.S.C. § 994 simply empowers the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing guidelines, and Section 28003 is a direction to the 

Sentencing Commission regarding sentencing enhancements for hate crimes. Neither 28 U.S.C. 

§ 994 nor Section 28003 creates a private right of action for a plaintiff like Mr. Thomas to bring a 

civil claim. Stevens v. Skolnik, No. 3:09-cv-00227-RCJ (RAM), 2010 WL 3081254, at *3 (D. Nev. 

May 19, 2010) (report and recommendation) (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 

(1973)), adopted, 2010 WL 3119188 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2010). To the extent Mr. Thomas is 

alleging that Mr. Scarcello violated criminal laws more generally, “[a] private citizen may not sue 

under the federal criminal laws absent some language in the statute that suggests a private right of 

action.” Bey v. City of Oakland, No. 14-cv-01626-JSC, 2014 WL 4220319, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 

25, 2014) (citing Ou-Young v. Vasquez, No. 12-CV-02789-LHK, 2012 WL 5471164, at *4 (N.D. 

Cal. Nov. 9, 2012)).

In light of the above, the court orders Mr. Thomas to file a statement of no more than five 

double-spaced pages showing cause why the court should not dismiss his claims against Mr. 

Scarcello. Mr. Thomas must file this statement within two weeks, i.e., by November 14, 2019. 

Alternatively, if Mr. Thomas agrees that he no longer wants to pursue a claim against Mr. 

Scarcello, the parties may file a joint stipulation, signed by all parties, dismissing Mr. Scarcello 

from the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2019 ______________________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge

 

4 Scarcello Answer – ECF No. 112 at 5.

Case 3:18-cv-06409-LB Document 116 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 2