Thomas v. Shaw
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:18-cv-06409
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Thomas v. Shaw, Judge Beeler ordered Thomas to explain why his claim against Scarcello should not be dismissed because the cited laws do not create a private civil claim.
Joseph Thomas and Jeffrey Scarcello; the order required Thomas to defend his claim against Scarcello or agree to Scarcello’s dismissal.
What happened
Joseph Thomas sued Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, Jeffrey Scarcello, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. Thomas alleged that Scarcello used insulting language, used “fighting words,” and got into an altercation with him. Scarcello claimed that Thomas assaulted him and broke his nose.
The court questioned whether Thomas had stated a legally valid claim against Scarcello. It noted that 18 U.S.C. § 5245 does not exist and that 28 U.S.C. § 994 and the cited hate-crime provision do not give private people the right to bring civil lawsuits. The court had not yet dismissed the claim.
Judge Laurel Beeler ordered Thomas to file, by November 14, 2019, a statement of no more than five double-spaced pages explaining why the claim against Scarcello should not be dismissed. Alternatively, the parties could file a signed joint agreement dismissing Scarcello from the case.
The detailed version
- Thomas v. Shaw · No. 3:18-cv-06409
- Laurel Beeler
- Oct. 31, 2019
Background
Joseph Thomas sued Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, Jeffrey Scarcello, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. The opinion states that other defendants—Balwantsinh D. Thakor, Kiransinh Thakor, and Shree Jalaram LLC—had already been dismissed. Thomas asserted one claim against Scarcello, identifying the alleged legal bases as the “Civil Rights Act of 1968,” 18 U.S.C. § 5245(b)(2), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 994 note, section 280003.
Thomas alleged that Scarcello used “fighting words” and various epithets against him and got into an altercation with him. Scarcello, in his answer, claimed that Thomas assaulted him and broke his nose.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that it may dismiss a claim on its own initiative when the plaintiff has not stated a valid, legally recognizable claim. The court questioned Thomas’s claim for several reasons:
- The court stated that there is no statute numbered 18 U.S.C. § 5245. - The court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 994 empowers the United States Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing guidelines. - The court said that section 280003 directs the Sentencing Commission regarding sentencing enhancements for hate crimes and does not create a private right of action. A private right of action is the legal authority for an individual to bring a civil lawsuit under a statute. - The court added that a private citizen generally may not sue under federal criminal laws unless the statute indicates that private lawsuits are allowed.
Order
The court ordered Thomas to file a statement of no more than five double-spaced pages showing why his claims against Scarcello should not be dismissed. The deadline was November 14, 2019. The court also provided an alternative: the parties could file a joint stipulation, signed by all parties, dismissing Scarcello from the case.
The order did not dismiss Scarcello at that time. It was an order to show cause requiring Thomas to respond before the court decided whether to dismiss the claim against him. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order on October 31, 2019.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.