Filed October 15, 2013
Defendants incorporate their arguments herein and, as discussed in Point II, Plaintiff’s claims are wholly without merit and should be dismissed. b) Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 42 U.S.C. § 1343(a): Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his 13th Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Am. Cplt., ¶¶ 131-135) is not among the acts enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1961 and therefore, is not a predicate act. 42 U.S.C. § 1343 is also not a predicate act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961.
Filed July 8, 2011
Plaintiff appears to be improperly alleging criminal conduct as the basis for his Negligence claim. As with his other claims, under the “Fifth Claim for Relief: Negligence,” Plaintiff cites “18 U.S.C. § 2, 3, 4, 241, 371, 1001, 1016, 1018, 1341, 1346, 1349” apparently as the basis for his negligence claim. (ECF No. 1. At p. 27).
Filed October 10, 2016
Finally, Plaintiff identifies 18 U.S.C. § 241 as a statute Ditech purportedly violated. Again, 18 U.S.C. § 241 addresses criminal conspiracies, identifies those crimes that constitute a violation as kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and murder, and only prescribes criminal penalties. Plaintiff cannot seek relief premised on violations of criminal laws.
Filed February 27, 2014
’” (quoting Alaji Salahuddin v. Alaji, 232 F.3d 305, 308 (2d Cir. 2000))). The Court declines to infer such rights.10 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claims under 26 U.S.C. § 7214 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 872, 1341, and 1001 are dismissed as against the Moving Defendants. 10 Moreover, Section 1983 is not a means to assert violations of federal statutes.
Filed January 10, 2017
His claim under Section 1983 fails for the additional reason that NDEX is not a “person” and was not acting under “color of law” when it initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Property. His claim under Sections 241 and 1985 should also be dismissed because pursuant to the Deed of Trust, U.S. Bank was entitled to pursue a non-judicial foreclosure in the event that Plaintiff defaulted under the Loan and could bring NDEX in as foreclosure trustee. It therefore follows that Plaintiff’s civil rights causes of action should be dismissed.
Filed October 26, 2016
Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1196 (9th Cir. 1995). ARGUMENT Plaintiffs’ FAC asserts nine separate Claims for Relief: (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (RICO); (2) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)(d) (RICO- Conspiracy); (3) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 175 (Promoting the Sale and Use of Biological Weapons); (4) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 178 (Promoting the Sale and Use of Chemical Weapons); (5) violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Infringement of 1 There is some question as to whether dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity should be analyzed under Rule 12(b)(6) or as a jurisdictional issue under Rule 12(b)(1). Elwood v. Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir.2006)(12(b)(6)); but see Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1040–44 (9th Cir.2003) (jurisdictional issue under Rule 12(b)(1)).
Filed October 20, 2016
1980). Detective Saldate acknowledges the above analysis, which was explained by the Arizona Court of Appeals’ memorandum decision, and yet, offers no additional facts or argument in support of his claim that he might possibly be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Because no co- conspirator exists, Detective Saldate cannot reasonably apprehend a danger of prosecution under this statute.
Filed September 15, 2014
Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action (Violation of 18 USC §§ 241, 214, & 245) Through Counts IV, V, and VI, Langermann purports to allege that, by conditioning his settlement benefits upon his compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the Defendants have somehow infringed upon his “federally protected activities” and his Fourth Amendment rights. He seeks relief under 18 USC §§ 241, 242, and 245 by broadly alleging, without any facts, that the Defendants “conspired to oppress, threaten and intimidate Langermann” with acts that were “willful and oppressive and malicious.” Am. Compl.
Filed October 11, 2007
73. The Petitioner and the movant was not given full legal capacity for the 1-862, 1-83 IN (Title 18 U.S.C.§241, §242 ) & knowledge, nor reasonable opportunity to learn of its character or its essential terms " (U. C. C. § 3-305) . 74.
Filed May 30, 2017
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). See also Ciralsky v. C.I.A., 355 F.3d 661, 668–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“Taken together, Rules 8(a) and 8(e)(1) underscore the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules.”); T.M. v. District of Columbia, 961 F.Supp.2d 169, 174 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Still, a complaint that is excessively long, rambling, disjointed, incoherent, or full of irrelevant and confusing material” will patently fail the Rule’s standard) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Courts have found that failure to comply with Rule 8 is valid grounds for dismissal. Ciralsky, 355 F.3d at 669 (explaining that “Rule 41(b) authorizes the court to dismiss either a claim or an action because of the plaintiff’s failure to comply with” Rule 8). Case 1:17-cv-00278-JEB Document 8-1 Filed 05/30/17 Page 3 of 6 4 5324, 2005 WL 375623, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 2005) (“…appellant cannot assert any claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4, 241, and 242, because, as criminal statutes, these statutes do not convey a private right of action.”); Rockefeller v. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 248 F. Supp. 2d 17, 23 (D.D.C. 2003)) (“Plaintiff is precluded from asserting any claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 242 and 371 because, as criminal statutes, they do not convey a private right of action.”).