Opinion
21-C-878
07-30-2021
JAN GRONEWOLD, Plaintiff, v. KIM GRONEWOLD, Defendant.
SCREENING ORDER
WILLIAM C. GRIESBACH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Jan Gronewold filed this action against Defendant Kim Gronewold on July 27, 2021. The Court is authorized to screen the complaint, regardless of whether the filing fee has been paid, to “save everyone time and legal expense.” See Hoskins v. Poelstra, 230 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). In screening a complaint, I must determine whether the complaint complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and states at least plausible claims for which relief may be granted. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Fed.R.Civ.P. 8.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For a court to exercise federal question jurisdiction, a well-pleaded complaint must establish “that federal law creates the cause of action or that plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Plaintiff alleges that, on April 14, 2021, Defendant intentionally and wrongfully indicated in a sworn affidavit that Plaintiff's income is $11,000 per month (instead of the actual $5,832), and based on her representation, the state court ordered that Plaintiff pay $21,600 in yearly spousal maintenance. He brings this action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1621, entitled “perjury generally, ” and asserts that, because “the federal crime has resulted in unjust payments, ” Defendant must return $21,600 to Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 1 at 4. “Private persons generally have no right to enforce criminal statutes or to sue under them unless the statute also creates a private right of action.” Saleem v. Helman, 124 F.3d 205, 1997 WL 527769, at *2 (7th Cir. 1997). Section 1621 is a federal criminal statute that does not create a private right of action; instead, only the federal government may bring a cause of action under the statute. Plaintiff has provided no arguable basis for relief, having failed to make any rational argument in law or fact to support his claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.