Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01099/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01099-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANK IRVIN MOPPINS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-1099 FCD GGH P

vs.

SHELL OIL COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s amended complaint filed August 24,

2006. For the following reasons, the court recommends that this action be dismissed.

Again named as defendants are Shell Oil Company, Gasoline Marketers of

America, Chervon, Texoil and Exxon. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his

constitutional and statutory rights by charging high prices for gasoline.

To the extent plaintiff asserts a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: 

(1) defendant was acting under color of state law at the time the complained of act was

committed; and (2) defendant's conduct deprived plaintiff of rights, privileges or immunities

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see West v. Atkins,

487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

Case 2:06-cv-01099-FCD-GGH Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The named defendants are not state actors because they are private corporations. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s theory that higher gas prices means higher prices in general which then

means higher prices for prison products to be consumed by inmates which further translates into

an Eighth Amendment violation is frivolous. Because plaintiff cannot cure this pleading defect,

the court recommends that this action be dismissed. 

To the extent that plaintiff attempts to use 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (fraud in the

importation of goods) as a basis on which to bring his action, plaintiff has no standing to sue. 

Only the United States may bring such an action for penalties. Dennison v. U.S. Dept. Of

Treasury, 678 F. Supp. 894, 896 (CIT 1988).

Finally, to the extent that plaintiff seeks to bring some type of common law tort

action, plaintiff does not suggest what jurisdictional basis this court might have for adjudicating

such an action. 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 9/25/06 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mop1099.56

Case 2:06-cv-01099-FCD-GGH Document 17 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2