Young v. Schultz
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-05203
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Young v. Schultz, Judge Hixson ordered dismissal of Plaintiffs’ criminal-statute claims, denied amendment of those claims, and allowed a new federal claim by December 2.
Jacalyn A. Young and Diane Lynn could not pursue their claims under the cited federal criminal statutes as private civil claims. Ronald J. Schultz’s motion led to dismissal of those claims, while the plaintiffs were allowed to consider filing an amended complaint based on a statute that provides a private cause of action.
What happened
In Young v. Schultz, Jacalyn Young and Diane Lynn sued Ronald Schultz under federal criminal statutes for blackmail, threatening communications by mail, and stalking.
The court said private individuals cannot bring criminal charges or obtain civil relief under those criminal statutes. It therefore concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue these claims.
The court ordered dismissal of the claims, denied leave to amend those criminal-statute claims, but allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint based on a federal law that provides a private cause of action. Judge Thomas S. Hixson also denied the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice as moot.
The detailed version
- Young v. Schultz · No. 3:22-cv-05203
- Thomas Hixson
- Nov. 18, 2022
Background
Jacalyn A. Young and Diane Lynn sued Ronald J. Schultz under 18 U.S.C. § 873 for blackmail, 18 U.S.C. § 876(d) for mailing threatening communications, and 18 U.S.C. § 2261A for stalking. Schultz moved to dismiss. The court canceled the scheduled hearing and decided the matter without oral argument.
Reasoning
The court did not address the parties’ arguments about whether the complaint adequately stated the claims. Instead, it focused on the fact that all of the plaintiffs’ claims arose under criminal statutes. The court explained that private individuals cannot bring criminal charges in federal court and that these statutes do not provide a basis for private civil liability. Because the plaintiffs could not pursue these criminal provisions themselves, the court concluded that they lacked standing to bring the claims.
The motion’s notice referred to a nonexistent Rule 2(b)(6). Schultz later referred to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), but did not analyze that procedure. Because Schultz was representing himself and the motion focused on whether the claims were plausible, the court treated it as a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). The court stated that, regardless of that characterization, it lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.
Ruling
The court ordered that the claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 873, 876(d), and 2261A be dismissed. It denied leave to amend claims based on those criminal statutes. It granted the plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint if they believed they had a claim supported by a private cause of action. Because the opinion states that all parties were California residents, any amended complaint had to include at least one plausible claim supporting federal-question jurisdiction. The deadline was December 2, 2022. If no amended complaint was filed, the case would be dismissed, or the plaintiffs could instead file a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A). Judge Thomas S. Hixson denied the plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice as moot.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.