Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00483/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00483-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CHRIS WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-0483 EMC

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS; (2) DISMISSING

COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO

AMEND; AND (3) DENYING AS MOOT

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY

INJUNCTION, MOTION FOR

DISCOVERY AND PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS, AND MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7)

Plaintiff Chris Walters has filed a complaint against the Commissioner and Regional

Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), alleging that his civil rights were

violated as a result of the SSA’s action. Mr. Walters has also filed with the Court an application to

proceed in forma pauperis. He has consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

I. DISCUSSION

A. In Forma Pauperis Application

When presented with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must first

determine if the applicant satisfies the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See

Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1226 n.5 (9th Cir. 1984). Section 1915(a) does not require an

applicant to demonstrate absolute destitution. See McCone v. Holiday Inn Convention Ctr., 797 F.2d

853, 854 (10th Cir. 1982) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331,

339(1948)).

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1 See, e.g., Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992) (determining that a court may dismiss

cases where the facts alleged are clearly baseless, fanciful, fantastic, delusional, irrational, wholly

incredible, etc.); Arcade v. Cockrell, No. 02-20444, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 21806, at *2 (5th Cir. July

15, 2003) (concluding that plaintiff’s filings in addition to his amended complaint following the district

court’s explicit and clear instructions not to file any additional pleadings exhibited contumacious

conduct and was malicious). 

2

 The Court acknowledges that Mr. Walters also takes issue with actions taken or statements

made by William S. Herbert, an ALJ, who is located in a SSA office in Texas. However, there does not

appear to be any basis for this Court to assert jurisdiction over Judge Herbert himself.

2

In his financial affidavit, Mr. Walters states that he is not presently employed and that his

only source of income is federal or state welfare payments. Mr. Walters also states that he does not

own a home or car or possess any other assets except for a bank account with limited funds. Finally,

Mr. Walters states that his monthly expenses consist of $391 for rent and $400 for food. Given these

circumstances, the Court grants Mr. Walters’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

B. Complaint

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) requires a court to dismiss any case in which a litigant seeks

leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is (1) frivolous or

malicious;1

 (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

The Court has reviewed Mr. Walters’s complaint. The complaint is confusing and difficult

to understand. From what the Court is able to divine, it appears that Mr. Walters takes issue with a

notice of hearing that was issued by an ALJ, Sandra K. Rogers, who is located in a SSA office in

California.2

 The notice informed Mr. Walters that there would be a hearing “concern[ing] [his]

application of January 15, 2004, for a period of disability and Disability Insurance Benefits under

section 216(I) and 223(a) of the Social Security Act” on January 28, 2008. Mr. Walters appears to

contend that no notice should have issued and no hearing should be held (or should have been held)

because he and the SSA previously reached an “informal agreement” regarding his disability

benefits. According to Mr. Walters, that informal agreement was effected by a SSA office in New

Mexico and was approved by a New Mexico federal court. Attached to the complaint is what

appears to be an order from a judge in the District of New Mexico, which granted Mr. Walters’s

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

 Section 4 provides that “[w]hoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony

cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the

same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 4 (emphasis added).

Section 242 provides in relevant part that “[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance,

regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,

or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the

Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account

of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment

of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” Id. § 242

(emphasis added).

4 See also Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1944)

(noting that “[w]e have been quite reluctant to infer a private right of action from a criminal prohibition

alone” and that “we have not suggested that a private right of action exists for all injuries caused by

violations of criminal prohibitions”); Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79-80 (1975) (stating that “provision of

a criminal penalty does not necessarily preclude implication of a private cause of action for damages”

but that there is no private right of action when there is “nothing more than a bare criminal statute, with

absolutely no indication that civil enforcement of any kind was available to anyone”). 

3

motion to withdraw his lawsuit based on an informal agreement with the SSA and dismissed the case

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Mr. Walters contends that the instant lawsuit is not one for benefits under the Social Security

Act. Rather, he appears to argue that he has a cause of action against the Commissioner and

Regional Commissioner of the SSA based on 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 and 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1986. The

Court concludes that Mr. Walters has failed to state a claim for relief under any of these statutes.

First, Mr. Walters cannot state a claim for violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 4 or 242 because neither

gives rise to a private right of action. Rather, these statutes are criminal statutes only.3 See, e.g.,

Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir. 1994) (concluding that district

court properly dismissed claim pursuant to § 242 because it is a “criminal statute[] that do[es] not

provide [a] private cause[] of action”); Cominsky v. FBI, No. 1:07 CV 1261, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

38719, at *9 (N.D. Ohio May 29, 2007) (noting that §§ 4 and 242 are criminal statutes and “provide

no private right of action”); Mathews v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, No. 05-100, 2006 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 56738, at *12 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2006) (stating that “[n]o right of civil action is created by

the plain language of [§ 4]”; adding that “[w]e can find no court that has concluded that this statute

creates any personal right or private remedy”).4

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

 Section 1986 provides in relevant part as follows: “Every person who, having knowledge that

any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in the preceding section [i.e., § 1985], are about

to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects

or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal

representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence

could have prevented . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1986. Section 1985 addresses conspiracies to violate civil

rights.

6 Although a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction over an action unless all parties have

consented, this Court does not require the consent of the Defendants in order to properly dismiss claims

brought in this action because Defendants have not been served, and, as a result, they are not parties.

See Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction

to dismiss prison inmate’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous without consent of defendants

because defendants had not been served yet and therefore were not parties); see also United States v.

Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that magistrate judge had jurisdiction to

enter default judgment in in rem forfeiture action even though property owner had not consented to it

because 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) only requires the consent of the parties and the property owner, having

failed to comply with the applicable filing requirements, was not a party).

4

Second, Mr. Walters cannot state a claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1986 because he has

failed to include any allegations of conspiracy in his complaint.5

 Furthermore, to the extent that Mr.

Walters suggests that SSA officials were conspiring with one another to deny him of his civil rights,

that would not support a viable § 1986 claim since the SSA cannot conspire with itself and thus

there can be no violation of § 1985, which is a necessary predicate for a violation of § 1986. Cf.

Richmond v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota, 957 F.2d 595 (8th Cir. 1992) (concluding

that an employee could not maintain an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1985 because a corporation could

not conspire with itself through its agents when the acts of the agents were within the scope of

employment).

The Court therefore concludes that Mr. Walters has failed to state a claim for relief.

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Mr. Walters’s application to proceed in forma

pauperis but dismisses his complaint without prejudice.6 The Court shall allow Mr. Walters to file

an amended complaint, if he wishes to do so, within 30 days from the date of this order. Mr. Walters

is forewarned that any amended complaint must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a),

which provides in relevant part that a complaint must contain only “a short and plain statement of

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (emphasis added).

Because the Court is dismissing the complaint, the Court denies as moot the pending motions filed

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

by Mr. Walters (i.e., the motion for a temporary injunction, the motion for summary judgment, and

the discovery motion/petition for writ of mandamus).

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 7.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 4, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

CHRIS WALTERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-08-0483 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

CHRIS WALTERS

2414 Kettleman Lane #210-1109

Lodi, CA 95242

Dated: March 4, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:08-cv-00483-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 6