Ackers v. Kerry ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    GREGORY ACKERS,                                )
    )
    Plaintiff,      )
    )
    v.                                      )       Civil Action No. 18-1296 (UNA)
    )
    JOHN KERRY, et al.,                            )
    )
    Defendants.     )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter comes before the Court upon review of plaintiff’s application for leave to
    proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. Plaintiff alleges that John Kerry, former
    United States Senator and Secretary of State, acted as an unregistered foreign agent when he met
    with the Iranian Foreign Minister in May 2018. See Compl. at 1-2 (page numbers designated by
    ECF). In so doing, plaintiff asserts, see id. at 3-4, Kerry engaged in espionage in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 793
    (e), conspiracy in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    , made false statements in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
    , and violated the Logan Act, see 
    18 U.S.C. § 953
    . Plaintiff demands
    compensatory and punitive damages. Compl. at 4.
    The Court dismisses the complaint because the statues on which plaintiff relies do not
    allow for a private right of action. See Strunk v. N.Y. Province of the Soc’y of Jesus, No. 10-
    5091, 
    2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 20876
    , at *2 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 5, 2010) (per curiam) (“To the extent
    appellant attempts to assert a claim under 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 951-960
    , these criminal statutes do not
    provide a private cause of action.”); West v. Mnuchin, No. 17-1129, 
    2017 WL 4765724
    , at *1
    (D.D.C. July 19, 2017) (dismissing claim against Secretary of the Treasury under 
    18 U.S.C. § 1001
     because this “criminal statute . . . does not provide for a private right of action”); Rice v.
    Holder, 
    898 F. Supp. 2d 291
    , 293 (D.D.C. 2012) (finding that “the federal criminal conspiracy
    statute plaintiff has cited, 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    , provides [no] private right of action against
    individuals”); Prunte v. Universal Music Group, 
    484 F. Supp. 2d 32
    , 42 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing
    Cort v. Ash, 
    422 U.S. 66
    , 79-80 (1975)) (“[I]n the criminal context, the Supreme Court has
    refused to imply a private right of action in ‘a bare criminal statute.’”). Accordingly, the Court
    dismisses the complaint and issues an order separately.
    /s/
    AMY BERMAN JACKSON
    United States District Judge
    DATE: July 6, 2018
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2018-1296

Judges: Judge Amy Berman Jackson

Filed Date: 7/25/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/25/2018