Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02292/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-02292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM JOSEPH BABBITT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-2292-TLN-JDP (PS)

ORDER

Plaintiff brings this action pro se, alleging that defendants violated swindled him under 18 

U.S.C. § 1341 when defendant Tangela Babbitt created a fraudulent Capital One account and the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, after failing to detect the fraud, deposited his funds therein. ECF 

No. 1 at 5-6. This code section does not create a private cause of action and, thus, the complaint 

fails to state a cognizable claim. I will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiff an opportunity to 

amend to explain why this action should proceed. I will also grant his application to proceed in 

forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(1) and 

(2).

Screening and Pleading Requirements

A federal court must screen the complaint of any claimant seeking permission to proceed 

in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The court must identify any cognizable claims and 

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 Page 1 of 3
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

2

dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such 

relief. Id.

A complaint must contain a short and plain statement that plaintiff is entitled to relief,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and provide “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). The plausibility standard does not 

require detailed allegations, but legal conclusions do not suffice. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009). If the allegations “do not permit the court to infer more than the mere 

possibility of misconduct,” the complaint states no claim. Id. at 679. The complaint need not 

identify “a precise legal theory.” Kobold v. Good Samaritan Reg’l Med. Ctr., 832 F.3d 1024, 

1038 (9th Cir. 2016). Instead, what plaintiff must state is a “claim”—a set of “allegations that 

give rise to an enforceable right to relief.” Nagrampa v. MailCoups, Inc., 469 F.3d 1257, 1264 

n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (citations omitted). 

The court must construe a pro se litigant’s complaint liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The court may dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint “if it 

appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Hayes v. Idaho Corr. Ctr., 849 F.3d 1204, 1208 (9th Cir. 2017). 

However, “‘a liberal interpretation of a civil rights complaint may not supply essential elements 

of the claim that were not initially pled.’” Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251, 

1257 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982)).

Analysis

Plaintiff alleges that his claims against defendants arise under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. ECF No. 

1 at 4. That statute does not create a private cause of action. See Chester v. United States Dep’t 

of State, NO. 3:23-cv-05367-DGE, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102908, *8 (W.D. Wash. June 10, 

2024) (“[T]o the extent Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the Mail Fraud Act, 18 USC § 1341, 

the Mail Fraud Act is a criminal statute and ‘does not create a private right of action[.]’”) 

(modification in original). Thus, this action cannot proceed. I will give plaintiff an opportunity 

to amend to explain why, if at all, his claims should still proceed.

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff may amend his complaint within thirty days of this order’s entry. He is advised 

that an amended complaint will supersede his current one and all claims and relevant exhibits 

must be contained in the new complaint without reference to its predecessor. If plaintiff fails to 

file an amended complaint within the deadline, I will recommend this action be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is dismissed with leave to amend.

3. Within thirty days from service of this order, plaintiff shall file either (1) an amended 

complaint or (2) notice of voluntary dismissal of this action without prejudice. 

4. Failure to timely file either an amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal may 

result in the imposition of sanctions, including a recommendation that this action be dismissed 

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

5. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff a complaint form with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2024 

JEREMY D. PETERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:24-cv-02292-TLN-JDP Document 3 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 3