Barhite v. Nadeau

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
HENRY BARHITE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 23-3594 (UNA)
)
BRIANNE NADEAU, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff’s application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) and his civil complaint. The IFP application is GRANTED and, for the
reasons stated below, the Complaint and this civil action are DISMISSED without prejudice.
Plaintiff brings this action against Brianne Nadeau, who represents Ward 1 on the
Council of the District of Columbia, alleging that defendant “committed prohibited acts,” in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1208, and engaged in mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341.
Compl. at 3.1 As alleged, defendant depicts plaintiff “as a crazy homeless person,” id. at 4, and
plaintiff says he has sustained injuries, see id. at 5, though this conclusory allegation provides no
further support tying any injuries to defendant. Plaintiff demands “[r]estitution of all moneys
paid or lost and 10 times the total for punitive.” Id. at 5.
1
Plaintiff’s reference to “31 U.S.C. § 1341” is presumably an error, since that citation to
the Anti-Deficiency Act, see 31 U.S.C. § 1341, carries no private right of action. See Feldman v.
Bowser, 315 F. Supp. 3d 299, 305 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Thurston v. United States, 696 F. Supp.
680, 683 (D.D.C. 1988)).
1
This Complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted, as the criminal
statutes on which plaintiff relies provide no basis for a civil cause of action. See Allen v. Adams,
No. 21-3208, 2022 WL 680336, at *3 (10th Cir. Mar. 8, 2022) (affirming district court’s
dismissal of “a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1028, which criminalizes fraudulent and other activities
relating to identification documents,” because “this statute does not provide a private right of
action”), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2889, (2022); Kathrein v. McGrath, 166 F. App’x 858, 863 (7th
Cir. 2006) (concluding that there is no private right of action under federal mail fraud statute, see
18 U.S.C. § 1341); see also Wagner v. Stout St. Fund I L.P., No. 13-cv-4256, 2013 WL 4679623,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2013) (“Generally, violations of the Criminal Code may not serve as
the basis for a civil cause of action unless the criminal statute includes an express or implied
private right of action.”) (citing Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283 (2002)).
An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.
DATE: December 28, 2023 BERYL A. HOWELL
United States District Judge
2