Opinion
1:22-cv-00290-SAB (PC)
03-25-2022
JASON HARPER, Plaintiff, v. THERESA CISNEROS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE FILED ON MARCH 23, 2022
(ECF NO. 5)
Plaintiff Jason Harper is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed the instant complaint on March 10, 2022. On March 14, 2022, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $402.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 3.)
However, on March 23, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice contending that the Court inappropriately interpreted and opened this action as civil rights complaint instead of a criminal complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Although Plaintiff contends that he wished to bring this action as a criminal complaint under several California Penal Code Sections, Plaintiff is advised that the penal code is a criminal statute and does not provide for a private right of action against Defendants. “With rare, limited exceptions, none of which applies to § 1983 actions, federal law does not allow a private citizen to bring a criminal prosecution against another citizen. Criminal actions are initiated by the state, not by private citizens.” Lipsey v. Reddy, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO-BAM (PC), 2017 WL 4811723, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-00569-LJO- BAM (PC), 2017 WL 5070338 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316 (1979) (noting that Supreme Court rarely implies a private right of action under a criminal statute.) Therefore, Plaintiff cannot bring a criminal action under § 1983 against Defendants for violation of the California Penal Code. See Turnbough v. Hernandez, No. 1:17-cv-01465-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 3637026, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-cv-01465-DAD-BAM, 2018 WL 5023388 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2018). Furthermore, based on a cursory review of the complaint, Plaintiff is alleging several retaliation (and other related) claims against prison officials, and such claims are appropriately brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Indeed, challenges to conditions of confinement by state prisoners are appropriately brought pursuant § 1983. See Nelson v. Campbell 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004) (“[Constitutional claims that merely challenge the conditions of a prisoner's confinement, whether the inmate seeks monetary or injunctive relief, fall outside of that core and may be brought pursuant to § 1983 in the first instance.”); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004). Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that this action be reclassified as a criminal complaint is DENIED.
By this statement, the Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff s claims raised in the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.