United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
KELVIN C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon review of plaintiff Kelvin C.
Thompson's application to proceed in district court
without prepaying fees or costs. Upon consideration of
plaintiff's financial information, his application will
be granted. Additionally, for the reasons explained below,
the Court will dismiss plaintiff's
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), 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 can 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). In determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, a
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).
files this civil suit against the Social Security
Administration, citing the following bases for federal
question jurisdiction: Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (§ 1981),
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 18
U.S.C. §§ 241-242, 245, and the Age Discrimination
Act of 1975. His allegations arise out of his interactions
with employees of the Social Security
of plaintiff's prolific and interrelated filings against
the Social Security Administration, the Court will quote his
complaint in full. It states as follows:
[O]n July 3, 2019, July 15, 2019, July 17, 2019 and July 19,
2019 reported in person to Social Security Office that my
check hadn't made it to my PO BOX for the second
consecutive month. On all above dates they refused to allow
me to speak with supervisor or manager about this. Nor would
they allow me the right to schedule an appointment. Today
July 22, 2019 I went to three Social Security Offices and
they refuse to service me and provide me with an emergency
check. This is a violation of my civil rights to fair and
relief, plaintiff seeks $100, 000 in compensatory damages and
$1, 000, 000 in punitive damages.
complaint will be dismissed on initial review. Plaintiff
states his claims arise under various federal laws. However,
none are availing. There is no indication plaintiff had an
employment relationship with the defendant or any person
mentioned in the complaint; therefore Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act is inapplicable. Plaintiff does not allege he
suffers from a disability, nor does he set forth any
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 § 1981 are unavailing. Sections
241-242 and 245 of Title 18 are criminal statutes that
provide no basis for any 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). Also, 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 another.”).
this action is 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
1109, 112 (8th Cir. 2000). A waiver of sovereign immunity
“cannot be implied but must be unequivocally
expressed” by Congress. United States v. King,
395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969).
limited waiver of sovereign immunity permitting review of the
denial of social security disability exists in 42 U.S.C.
§ 405(g). In relevant part, that statute provides:
“Any individual after any final decision of the
Commissioner made after a hearing to which he was a party . .
. may obtain judicial review of such decision by a civil
action . . .”). Here, plaintiff does not allege that he
intends to challenge a final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security. Instead, he attempts to bring claims against
the SSA for compensatory and punitive damages because its
employees refused to allow him to speak to a manager,
schedule an appointment, or write him an emergency check.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated waiver of sovereign immunity
relative to such claims.
foregoing reasons, the Court will order this action dismissed