Courts, including this one, have also held that 18 U.S.C. § 249, which is known as the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act, contains no private cause of action. Chicago Title & Land Trust Co. v. Rabin, No. 11-cv-425, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10681, at *13 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2012) (“Because neither personal rights nor private remedies exist in the statutory text [of § 249], the Court concludes that Congress did not intend to create a private right of action.”); see also Hopson v. Aguair Law Office, No. 3:12CV-769-M, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56372 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 19, 2013); Turner v. Tierney, No. C 12-6231 MMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34925 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013); Godfrey v. Ross, No. 2:11-2308 WBS EFB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138366 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); Benitez v. Rumage, No. C-11-208, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82832 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2011). Thus, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs claims brought pursuant to these statutes for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

As to Plaintiff's claims under the Hate Crimes Act, courts have held that the Act, 18 U.S.C. § 279, creates no private right of action. See Turner v. Tierney, No. C 12-6231 MMC, 2013 WL 1003634, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013) (citing Loos v. Oregon Dep't of Corr., No. 3:11-cv-00208-BR, 2012 WL 385385, at *6 (D. Or. Feb. 6, 2012); Chicago Title & Land Trust Co. v. Rabin, No. 11-cv-425, 2012 WL 266387, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2012); Godfrey v. Ross, No. CIV. 2:11-2308 WBS EFB, 2011 WL 6012607, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2011); Benitez v. Rumage, No. C-11-208, 2011 WL 3236199, at *1 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2011); Wolfe v. Beard, No. 10-2566, 2011 WL 601632, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2011); Lorenz v. Managing Director, St. Luke's Hosp., No. 09 Civ. 8898(DAB)(JCF), 2010 WL 4922267, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 4922541 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2010)). "The Hate Crimes Act does not confer rights on a specific class of persons, but rather criminalizes certain offenses based on, among other traits, a person's national origin, gender, or sexual orientation."

Although no federal appellate court has addressed the issue, see Lu-in Wang, Hate Crimes L. § 3:2 (2012), the district courts that have done so have held the Hate Crimes Act, as a criminal statute, creates no private right of action. See Loos v. Oregon Dept. of Corr., 2012 WL 385385 (D. Or. 2012); Chicago Title & Land Trust Co. v. Rabin, 2012 WL 266387 (N.D. Ill. 2012); Godfrey v. Ross, 2011 WL 6012607 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Benitez v. Rumage, 2011 WL 3236199 (S.D. Tex. 2011); Wolfe v. Beard, 2011 WL 601632, *3 (E.D. Pa. 2011); Lorenz v. Managing Director, St. Luke's Hosp., 2010 WL 4922267 (S.D. N.Y. 2010), report and recommendation adopted, 2010 WL 4922541 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). The Court is persuaded by the reasoning set forth in those decisions.

The Ninth Circuit has not specificallyaddressed whether the Hate Crimes Prevention Act provides a private right of action; however, other courts have held that the Act, as a criminal statute, does not give rise to a private right of action. See, e.g., Benitez v. Rumage, No. C-11-208, 2011 WL 3236199, at *1 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2011); Wolfe v. Beard, Civil Action No. 10-2566, 2011 WL 601632, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2011); Lorenz v. Managing Dir., St. Luke's Hosp., No. 09 Civ 8898, 2010 WL 4922267, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2010); Lee v. Lewis, No. 2:10-CV-55-F, 2010 WL 5125327, at *2 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 28, 2010). As the language of the statute and supporting caselaw indicate that there is no private right of action, an alleged violation of the Hate Crimes Act cannot constitute a cause of action under § 1983.