Source: http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180307_0000228.EKY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:33:07+00:00

Document:
KAREN K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT.
First, to the extent that Howard's Complaint alleges violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1701, 1702, and 1703, these are criminal statutes prohibiting the obstruction of mail and do not give rise to a private cause of action. See Miles v. Bottom, 2016 WL 2344222 at *4 (E.D. Ky. 2016)(“Because a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the criminal prosecution of another, a civil plaintiff has no standing to assert a claim arising under a criminal statute.”)(citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 615, 619 (1973); Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979)). See also Woods v. McGuire, 954 F.2d 388, 391 (6th Cir. 1992)(federal courts have uniformly held that there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1703); Berlin Democratic Club v. Rumsfeld, 410 F.Supp. 144, 162 (D.D.C. 1976)(“Section 1702 is purely a criminal statute and cannot support a civil cause of action.”).
Next, although it is not entirely clear given the difficulty of reading Howard's handwriting, it appears that Howard may reference the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in his Complaint. [R. 1 at p. 8]. However, to the extent that Howard is attempting to suggest that Lackey “seized” his mail in violation of the Fourth Amendment, “the Fourth Amendment does not apply to searches of prison cells or seizures of property within them.” Simmons v. Szelewski, 642 Fed.Appx. 95, 99 (3d Cir. 2016) (citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984)); Shakur v. Coelho, 421 Fed.Appx. 132, 133 (3d Cir. 2011). This is so because “[t]he recognition of privacy rights for prisoners in their individual cells simply cannot be reconciled with the concept of incarceration and the needs and objectives of penal institutions.” Hudson, 468 U.S. at 526.
In addition, Howard fails to allege any facts to support a Fourteenth Amendment Claim for violation of his due process or equal protection rights. Generally, pro se pleadings are liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Even so, the principles requiring generous construction of pro se pleadings are not without limits. Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). The Court has an obligation to liberally construe a complaint filed by a person proceeding without counsel, but it has no authority to create arguments or claims that the plaintiff has not made. Coleman v. Shoney's, Inc., 79 Fed.Appx. 155, 157 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Pro se parties must still brief the issues advanced with some effort at developed argumentation.”); Superior Kitchen Designs, Inc. v. Valspar Indus. (U.S.A.), Inc., 263 F.Supp.2d 140, 148 (D. Mass. 2003) (“While the allegations of the complaint are construed favorably to the plaintiff, the court will not read causes of action into the complaint which are not alleged.”). Thus, Howard's failure to allege any facts that would give rise to a Fourteenth Amendment claim is a sufficient reason to dismiss this claim.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has expressly held that where a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the broad rubric of substantive due process. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 843 (1998); see also Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 (1989) (“Where a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims.”). “A prisoner's right to receive mail is protected by the First Amendment.” Sallier v. Brooks, 343 F.3d 868, 873 (6th Cir. 2003). See also Stanley v. Vining, 602 F.3d 767, 769 (6th Cir. 2010)(recognizing that a prisoner's liberty interest in receiving mail is grounded in the First Amendment). Because the First Amendment is the proper vehicle to assert claims of interference with Howard's right to receive mail, his claim under the Fourteenth Amendment fails as a matter of law, and must be dismissed. See Cooleen v. Lamanna, 248 Fed.Appx. 357, 362 (3rd Cir. 2007) (viability of claim under Eighth Amendment to challenge medical care of prisoner forecloses availability of substantive due process claim); Bell v. Johnson, 308 F.3d 594, 609-10 (6th Cir. 2002) (prisoner's claim that officials retaliated against him for filing grievances was squarely covered by First Amendment, precluding due process claim under Fourteenth Amendment). Thus, to the extent that Howard purports to bring claims against Lackey under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment, these claims will be dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1703
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.