Court Opinion

ID: 9953708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 18:00:58.323223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:07:21.209140
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 23-7155                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                       1:23-cv-02592-UNA
                                                       Filed On: March 22, 2024
Dmt MacTruong, also known as Dr. Mac
Truong,

              Appellant

       v.

John V. Salierno, Esq., et al.,

              Appellees

            ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Millett, and Walker, Circuit Judges

                                     JUDGMENT

        This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

        ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 11,
2023 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground
that it was frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S.
319, 325 (1989) (“[A] complaint . . . is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in
law or in fact.”). Appellant has not shown any error in the district court’s conclusion that
there is no private right of action under the criminal statutes he cited or under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice. See Crosby v. Catret, 308 F. App’x 453, 453 (D.C.
Cir. 2009) (stating that there is no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 241); see
also Lee v. United States Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 77-78 (D.C. Cir. 2017)
(“[T]he express provision of a criminal penalty . . . in a bare criminal statute, with no
other statutory basis for inferring that a civil cause of action exists, is insufficient to
imply Congress intended to create a concomitant civil remedy.”) (cleaned up).
Moreover, appellant has not shown that the court erred in dismissing the complaint with
prejudice. See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam)
(“A dismissal with prejudice is warranted . . . when a trial court determines that the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-7155                                                September Term, 2023

allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure
the deficiency.”) (cleaned up).

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk
is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution
of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.
P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

                                       Per Curiam

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Michael C. McGrail
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2