United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KELVIN C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
SS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court upon the motion of plaintiff
Kelvin C. Thompson for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action. Upon consideration of the motion and the
financial information provided in support, the Court
concludes that plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. The
motion will therefore be granted. Additionally, the Court
will dismiss the complaint.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. An action is frivolous if it "lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact." Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328 (1989). An action fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it does not
plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The court must assume
the veracity of well-pleaded facts, but need not accept as
true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause
of action, supported by mere conclusory statements."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
term "'frivolous,' when applied to a complaint,
embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also
the fanciful factual allegation." Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 328. While federal courts should not dismiss an
action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged are
merely unlikely, the court can properly dismiss such an
action if it finds the allegations in the complaint are
"clearly baseless." Denton v. Hernandez,
504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S.
319). Allegations are clearly baseless if they are
"fanciful," "fantastic," or
"delusional," or if they "rise to the level of
the irrational or the wholly incredible." Id.
brings this action against "SS Administrative
Office." He filed a complaint, followed by numerous
supplemental documents. In the complaint, he invokes this
Court's federal question jurisdiction, and writes:
"civil rights violated to fair and just treatment,
Federal Stealing of federal funds, wire fraud, Impersonating
Federal Employee." In supplemental documents, he
indicates an intent to proceed pursuant to Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 34 U.S.C. § 10228, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and
18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 245.
setting forth his allegations, he writes:
On June 3, 2019, July 3, 2019, July 5, 2019, July 9, 2019 and
July 10th, 2019 at Social Security Administration located at
1215 Fern Ridge Suite 100, Creve Coeur 63141. Allow
individuals to impersonate federal employees and violate my
civil rights to fair treatment and service, these individuals
(impersonating social security employees) also wired my funds
to fraudulent accounts and/or stole my funds. One employee
who gave me a printed in office check #6742400233 in the
amount of $999.00 dated Jun 7, 2019 named Darlene Harrison
was one of the culprits I know by name.
supplemental document, plaintiff states he visited another
Social Security Administration office and "they still
are conspiring against me and violating my civil rights to
receive my Federal protected activities." He states they
told him his funds would be mailed to him and the update
would be reflected in the system, but they never made the
request. In another supplemental document, plaintiff states
he was refused services and not allowed to meet with a
supervisor. He writes: "These workers and people
impersonating SSA employees need to be fired, reprimanded and
imprisoned. One or several of the workers are also conspiring
together and are wire transferring my federal entitlement to
their own personal accounts."
relief, plaintiff seeks monetary damages, and he states he
wants all of the people involved to be fired, fined and
states his claims arise under various federal laws. However,
none are availing. Plaintiff does not allege he suffers from
a disability, nor does he set forth non-conclusory
allegations that he is a member of a protected class or that
the defendant purposefully and intentionally discriminated
against him because of his race, color or national origin.
Therefore, the ADA, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, and 34 U.S.C. § 10228 are
unavailing. Additionally, plaintiff does not allege, nor does
it appear, that he exhausted his administrative remedies, as
required before bringing a claim under 34 U.S.C. §
10228. Sections 241-242 and 245 of Title 18 are criminal
statutes that provide no basis for a private cause of action.
See U.S. v. Wadena, 152 F.3d 831, 846 (8th Cir.
1998) ("Courts have repeatedly held that there is no
private right of action under [18 U.S.C] § 241 . .
."); Cok v. Cosentino, 876 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.
1989) (stating that only a United States prosecutor can bring
a complaint under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242);
Roberson v. Pearson, 2012 WL 4128303, *1 (D. Minn.
2012) (18 U.S.C. § 245 is a federal criminal statute
that does not provide for a private right of action).
Additionally, plaintiff does not have a legally cognizable
interest in having another person arrested or charged with a
crime, nor can this Court compel a criminal prosecution.
See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619
(1973) ("a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable
interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of
has named "SS Administrative Office" as defendant
in this matter. This may be a reference to the location of
the Social Security office that plaintiff visited. However,
it is not apparent that "SS Administrative Office"
is actually a legal entity with the capacity to be sued. To
the extent plaintiff can be understood to bring this action
against the United States Social Security Administration
("SSA"), his claims are barred by the doctrine of
sovereign immunity. An action brought against a federal
agency like the SSA is essentially one brought against the
United States. "To sue the United States, [a plaintiff]
must show both a waiver of sovereign immunity and a grant of
subject matter jurisdiction." V S Ltd. Partnership
v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 235 F.3d