Opinion
2:24-cv-02027-MSN-cgc
11-25-2024
CHRISTOPHER DIONNE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES NAVY, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON UNITED STATES NAVY'S MOTION TO DISMISS IN LIEU OF ANSWER
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Defendant United States Navy's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) #9). Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, the instant motion has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation. For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED.
I. Introduction
On January 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint alleging a violation of 18 United States Code Section 1001 (“Section 1001”). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Rear Admiral Brandon McLane, who he states served as the Commander of United States Navy Recruiting Command, made false or misleading statements about Plaintiff to the Defense Counterintelligence Security Agency and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. (Compl. ¶ 2). Plaintiff alleges that these false statements resulted in his suspension without pay and benefits for over fifteen months. (Compl. ¶ 3).
On April 12, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. Defendant asserts that this Court may not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim because it is a criminal statute that does not contain a private right of action. Further, Defendant asserts that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because he personally may not pursue any remedies for violations of criminal law.
Local Rule 12.1 provides that a “party opposing a motion to dismiss must file a response within 28 days after the motion is served.” Plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, on July 8, 2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing him to do so within fourteen days. (D.E. #10).
On July 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed his Response to Order to Show Cause. (D.E. #12). However, Plaintiff failed to respond to the arguments raised in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. On July 19, 2024, Defendant filed its Reply noting that Plaintiff did not substantively address its arguments in his Response. (D.E. #13). Thus, Defendant again requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
II. Proposed Analysis and Conclusions of Law
Title 18 of the United States Code codifies federal criminal law. Section 1001 makes it a crime to make knowingly and willfully falsify information provided in any matter within the jurisdiction over the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A private citizen does not have authority to initiate a federal criminal prosecution. Williams v. Luttrell, 99 Fed.Appx. 705, 707 (6th Cir. 2004); Saro v. Brown, 11 Fed.Appx. 387, 388 (6th Cir. 2001). For this reason, Section 1001 does not contain a private right of action. Valencia Marie Cox v. Rivercrest Homeowners Assoc., Inc., No. 3:21-CV-461-CHB, 2022 WL 2079882, at *2 (W.D.Ky. June 9, 2022) (citing Setzer v. First Choice Lending Servs., LLC, No. 18-5192, 2018 WL 7500477, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018); Kentucky Container Serv., Inc. v. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc., No. 3:22-CV-119-CHB, 2022 WL 1084746, at *3 (W.D.Ky. Apr. 11, 2022)).
When a plaintiff alleges violations of a federal criminal statute under which no private right of action exists, the statute cannot be said to create subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court. See Rodney Wilson v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 17-4248, 2018 WL 6422853, at *2 (6th Cir. June 25, 2018) (citing cases). Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint alleging violations of Section 1001 must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer be GRANTED.
SIGNED.
ANY OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REPORT MUST BE FILED WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS AFTER BEING SERVED WITH A COPY OF THE REPORT. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). FAILURE TO FILE SAID OBJECTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS MAY CONSTITUTE A WAIVER AND/OR FORFEITURE OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE OBJECTIONS, EXCEPTIONS, AND ANY FURTHER APPEAL.