MANGANELLO
v.
HAYNES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the plaintiff could not assert a private civil cause of action under the federal criminal stalking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2261A, and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging the defendant remotely accessed his home power supply, abused him with radio frequency, stalked him …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cort V. Ash Factors cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter comes before the Court on review of pro se plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) filed on June 13, 2022, in response to the Court’s Order (Doc. #3) dismissing the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction1 and failure to state a claim2. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff asserts that defendant remotely accessed his home power supply and abused him with radio
Nevertheless, having carefully reviewed § 2261A, we cannot find anything in its plain language to indicate that it is more than a “bare criminal statute.” See Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 80, 95 S. Ct. 2080, 45 L. Ed. 2d 26 (1975).
Section 2261 also does not explicitly contain a private right of action, and § 2264's provisions for restitution plainly state that the penalty is “in addition to any other” penalty authorized by law—thus, neither of these provisions provide for a private right of action either. Further, there is no evidence from which we can infer that Congress intended to create a private right of action under § 2261A. Rock v. BAE Sys., Inc., 556 F. App'x 869, 871 (11th Cir. 2014).
As plaintiff cannot assert a private civil cause of action under the federal criminal statute, the Court continues to have no subject matter jurisdiction. Having previously provided plaintiff an opportunity to assert subject matter jurisdiction, the case will be dismissed without an opportunity to amend. The Court notes, if the case is reasserted with a new case number, that the case should be filed in the Tampa Division of the Middle District of Florida. M.D. Fla. R. 1.04(a).
The defendant resides in Lakeland (Polk County) and the attached accident reports, to the extent relevant, show that the accident occurred in Lakeland, Florida. See M.D. Fla. R. 1.04(b) (an action must begin in the division “most directly connected or in which the action is most conveniently advanced”).
Therefore, the case is alternatively dismissed as not properly filed in the Fort Myers Division.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and venue. The
Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and deadlines, including the Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. #5), and close the file. DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this 28th day of June 2022.
bbok
JGHH E. STEELE
5 IOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies: Parties of Record