Young et al v. Schultz

Filing 15

ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Hixson re 7 Motion to Dismiss. Amended complaint due by 12/2/2022. (tshlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JACALYN A YOUNG, et al.,

Case No. 22-cv-05203-TSH

Plaintiffs,

6

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

7

Re: Dkt. No. 7

8

RONALD J SCHULTZ,
Defendant.

9
10

Plaintiffs Jacalyn Young and Diane Lynn bring this case against Defendant Ronald Schultz

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

for blackmail (18 U.S.C. § 873), mailing threatening communications (18 U.S.C. § 876(d)), and

13

stalking (18 U.S.C. § 2261A). Pending before the Court is Schultz’s Motion to Dismiss.1 ECF

14

No. 7. Plaintiffs filed an Opposition (ECF No. 12) and Schultz filed a Reply (ECF No. 14).2 The

15

Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the

16

December 8, 2022 hearing. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).
Without considering the parties’ arguments regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ claims,

17
18

the Court notes their claims are all brought under criminal statutes. It is well-established that

19

“private individuals lack standing to assert claims for relief based on criminal statutes.” Redmond

20

v. United States, 2022 WL 1304472, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2022) (listing cases); see also Aldabe

21

v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (“Appellant also claimed relief under 18 U.S.C. §§

22

241 and 242. These criminal provisions, however, provide no basis for civil liability.”). Thus,

23

“[i]ndividuals cannot file criminal charges in the United States District Court. Rather, criminal

24
25
26
27
28

Schultz’s motion is somewhat confusing as the notice states it is based on Rule 2(b)(6), but there
is no such rule. Schultz later refers to a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,
but he does not analyze this procedure, instead focusing on whether Plaintiffs state plausible
claims. Given Schultz’s pro se status and the content of his motion, the Court will assume he
meant to bring a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Regardless, as discussed herein, the
Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.
2
The parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). ECF
Nos. 6, 10.
1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

proceedings in federal court are initiated by the government, usually through the United States

2

Attorney’s Office.” Candy-Anh-Thu:Tran v. Daniel, 2017 WL 6513414, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20,

3

2017) (citing Harbor v. Kim, 2017 WL 443164, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2017) (“The decision to

4

institute criminal proceedings lies within the discretion of the proper state or federal prosecuting

5

authority”); see also United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (observing that the

6

executive branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a

7

case”). As such, Plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claims alleged in their complaint. See

8

Aldabe, 616 F.2d at 1092; Bendorf v. Ojai Basin Groundwater Mgmt. Agency, 2012 WL 3867352,

9

at *12 (C.D. Cal. July 16, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, 2012 WL 3929891 (C.D.

10

Cal. Sept. 4, 2012) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 876); Kruska v. Perverted Just.

11

Found. Incorporated.Org, 2010 WL 4791666, at *8 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2010) (“Because there is

12

not a private right of action or recovery under 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2), Plaintiff’s claim under this

13

statute is dismissed with prejudice.”). Accordingly, their claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 873, 876(d),

14

and 2261A must be dismissed.3
Although leave to amend their claims based on criminal statutes is denied, the Court shall

15
16

grant Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint if they believe there are any claims under

17

which they can bring a private cause of action. As there is no dispute that all parties are residents

18

of California, any amended complaint must allege at least one plausible claim that is based on the

19

Court’s federal question jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs choose to do so, they may file an amended

20

complaint by December 2, 2022. If Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint, the case shall be

21

dismissed, with judgment entered accordingly. Alternatively, Plaintiffs may file a notice of

22

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: November 18, 2022

25
THOMAS S. HIXSON
United States Magistrate Judge

26
27
28

3

As the Court did not consider the documents Plaintiffs requested, their request for judicial notice
(ECF No. 13) is denied as moot.
2