Abrahim Fata v. Abigail Sheehan, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey screened Abrahim Fata’s fourth amended civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. The court dismissed with prejudice claims based on federal criminal statutes lacking private rights of action and dismissed without prejudice the remaining § 1983, § 1985, federal statutory, and state-law claims. The court granted Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis and his motion to reopen the case, then directed that the matter be closed.

Holdings

1. The federal criminal statutes cited by Plaintiff, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 249, 287, 873, 1201, 1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1621, and 1622, do not provide a private right of action merely by virtue of their enactment. Claims based on those statutes were dismissed with prejudice because the deficiency could not be cured by amendment.
2. The court could not grant Plaintiff's request that Defendants be arrested and brought to justice because decisions to prosecute criminal offenses rest with the executive branch, not a private civil plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim because the Fourth Amended Complaint did not allege facts showing that any Defendant acted under color of state law.
4. The complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8(a) because it lumped all Defendants together without differentiating the conduct allegedly attributable to each Defendant.
5. Plaintiff's § 1985 claims failed because they depended on a viable § 1983 deprivation, which Plaintiff did not plead. The court also treated the related § 1986 theory as dependent on the unsuccessful underlying civil-rights claim.
6. Plaintiff failed to state claims under the civil RICO provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), or under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 because he did not plausibly allege the required statutory violations or that he was a victim entitled to sue under § 2255.
7. After dismissing all claims within its original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether claims based on the cited federal criminal statutes stated claims for which a private civil remedy exists.
2. Whether Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against private defendants by alleging a constitutional deprivation committed under color of state law.
3. Whether Plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 could proceed absent a viable § 1983 claim.
4. Whether Plaintiff plausibly stated claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964(c) and 2255.
5. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

Disposition

dismissed