Canada v. All Members of Damascus Way Staff

Background

Shawn Canada, who was incarcerated at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, filed a complaint without a lawyer against All Members of Damascus Way Staff, Dan Sepeda, and Dan Stehr. He cited 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1962, and 1512, and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and referred to racketeering, obstruction of justice, fraud, health care fraud, abuse or neglect, retaliation, hostage taking, conspiracy, and mail fraud. He said he wanted to file federal criminal charges and alleged, among other things, that he had been restrained without due process and that people had tampered with judges and government officials.

Canada submitted several additional documents. One document suggested that he had lived at Damascus Way during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and had been discharged after returning to outside employment, violating safety protocols, and failing to follow staff instructions. The court found that neither the complaint nor the additional submissions provided a coherent factual narrative about the defendants’ conduct.

Legal analysis

Because Canada was incarcerated, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That law requires dismissal of a prisoner’s civil action, or portions of it, that fail to state a legally actionable claim. A complaint must allege specific facts that, if proven, would entitle the plaintiff to relief under a recognized legal theory. The court accepts factual allegations as true at this stage but does not have to accept unsupported legal conclusions or invent missing facts.

The court explained that a private person cannot initiate a federal criminal prosecution. It also held that the RICO provisions Canada cited—18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 and 1962—did not themselves create a private right to sue. Even if Canada had relied on 18 U.S.C. § 1964, which can provide a private civil remedy for certain racketeering injuries, he had not alleged an injury to his business or property.

The court further held that 18 U.S.C. § 1512, concerning witness, victim, or informant tampering, is a criminal statute that does not create a private right of action. Although 42 U.S.C. § 1985 can provide a civil remedy for certain conspiracies, Canada had not alleged facts plausibly showing that two or more people conspired to harm him. The court reached the same conclusion about the other statutes and legal theories identified in Canada’s filings because they were not supported by coherent factual allegations.

Disposition

Judge Susan Richard Nelson ordered that Canada’s entire complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). The court denied Canada’s motions to proceed without paying filing fees as moot and directed that judgment be entered.