Maib v. Baird ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 2:19-CV-14289-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD GEORGE MAIB, Plaintiff, v. JOE BAIRD, et al., Defendants. / ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT AND CLOSING CASE THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice, filed on September 4, 2019. DE 10. Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion to Dismiss was due by September 18, 2019. Plaintiff has not filed a Response to date. Under Rule 7.1(c) of the Local Rules for the Southern District of Florida, Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely Response is sufficient cause for granting the Motion to Dismiss by default. In addition, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff brings claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 and 644. Those statutes are criminal statutes, and Plaintiff points to no authority that provides him a private cause of action for those crimes. See Holt v. Baker, 710 F. App’x 422, 424 (11th Cir. 2017) (stating that 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 “are criminal in nature and provide no civil remedies” (quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff lacks standing to bring criminal charges, as the government, not private citizens, prosecutes crimes. Williams v. Univ. of Ala. Hosp. at Birmingham, 353 F. App’x 397, 398 (11th Cir. 2009) (affirming a district court’s dismissal of a pro se complaint alleging criminal assault and bribery). For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint with Prejudice [DE 10] is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 3. The Clerk of Court is instructed to CLOSE THIS CASE. All pending deadlines are TERMINATED, all hearings are CANCELLED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, West Palm Beach, Florida, this 25th day of September, 2019. 2h’ ( Tio \ A ROBIN L. ROSENBERG 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT J uDet Copies furnished to: Plaintiff Counsel of Record