Thomas v. Shaw

Background

Joseph Thomas sued Randall Shaw, Mwangi Mukami, Jeffrey Scarcello, and Tenderloin Housing Clinic Inc. The order addresses only Thomas’s claim against Scarcello. Thomas alleged that Scarcello used racial and homophobic slurs, called others to confront him, and got into an altercation with him. Scarcello disputed Thomas’s account and claimed that Thomas assaulted him and broke his nose.

Thomas identified his claim as arising under 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. In response to the court’s order to show cause, Thomas said he had intended to sue Scarcello under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating his civil rights.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it could dismiss claims on its own initiative when a plaintiff did not state a valid legal claim, but only after giving notice and an opportunity to respond. The court had issued that notice and reviewed Thomas’s response.

The court held that there is no statute identified as 18 U.S.C. § 5245. It also held that 28 U.S.C. § 994 empowers the U.S. Sentencing Commission to establish sentencing guidelines, while section 280003 directs the Commission regarding sentencing enhancements for hate crimes. Neither provision creates a private right of action—a legal basis allowing a person to bring a civil lawsuit.

The court further held that a private citizen generally cannot sue under federal criminal laws unless the statute creates a private right of action. As to Thomas’s intended Section 1983 claim, the court explained that Section 1983 requires conduct by a state actor, such as a government official acting under state authority. Thomas did not plausibly allege that Scarcello, a private individual, was a state actor. The court also found that Thomas’s allegations that Scarcello worked with or conspired with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic were conclusory and that the clinic’s alleged receipt of federal funds, without more, did not make it a state actor.

Ruling and effect

The court dismissed Thomas’s claims against Scarcello. It gave Thomas leave to replead—that is, permission to file an amended complaint—within 14 days of the order. The court did not grant permission at that point to amend or add claims against defendants other than Scarcello or to add new defendants.

The court stated that if Thomas did not timely file an amended complaint containing valid claims against Scarcello, it would dismiss those claims with prejudice and dismiss Scarcello from the case. The order also explained that any new complaint should be titled a Third Amended Complaint and would replace the earlier complaint rather than supplement it.