The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
ORDER: (1) DENYING EX PARTE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; and (2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS BY 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [Doc. Nos. 3, 5]
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's "Ex Parte Motion for Special Action In Personam" [Doc. No. 5] in which he seeks reconsideration of the Court's May 4, 2010 Order. In addition, Plaintiff has filed a "Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis" ("IFP") [Doc. No. 3].
On April 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed a "Complaint and Affidavit for Investigation and Prosecution" which he claimed was filed on behalf of himself and seventeen other inmates at Calipatria State Prison ("CAL"). Because Plaintiffs claimed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and unidentified prison officials at CAL violated their rights under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution and California law since a racial riot occurred on CAL's Facility C on March 20, 2010 (Compl. at 1-3), the Court liberally construed the action to arise under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See May 4, 2010 Order at 1.
This action was dismissed because Plaintiff Scott failed to file a Motion to Proceed IFP. Id. at 2-3. In addition, the Court noted that, as a prisoner proceeding pro se, Plaintiff Scott had no authority to represent the legal interests of anyone other than himself. Id. at 2. Thus, the remaining Plaintiffs were terminated from the Court's docket. Id. at 3.
Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Proceed IFP, along with an "Ex Parte Motion for Special Action in Personam on Reconsideration of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction and On Requirements in Filing Fees or Proceeding IFP."
II. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court's May 4, 2010 Order on the grounds that the Court wrongfully construed his Complaint as a civil complaint and that the Court should not have dismissed his action for failing to pay the initial civil filing fee. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks to bring an action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4 because prison officials at CAL "knowingly, willfully and continually act and conspire to oppress, injure, and damage BLACK prisoners under operations in which patterns and/or practices of flagrant and/or egregious conditions depriving BLACK prisoners of their constitutional right to Life, Liberty, and/or Property ." See Pl.'s Mot. to Reconsider at 3.
The Federal criminal statute dealing with misprision of felony provides:
"[w]hoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the Unitd States, conceals and does not as soon as possibile make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."
Plaintiff argues that he is bringing this action to report the alleged criminal behavior of CAL prison officials. However, a violation of this criminal statute does not provide for a private right of action by plaintiff simply because he claims he has been affected by its alleged violation.
There is no private cause of action for the alleged violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4 unless the intent to create a private cause of action is expressed in the statute or clearly implied. See Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994); Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 79 (1975). Here, neither the statute itself nor any legal authority provides for a ...