United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
DAVETTE G. BUCHANAN, Plaintiff,
ANTHONY LAUSH, et al., Defendants.
Reidinger United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
Plaintiff Davette G. Buchanan brings this action against a
number of employees of the Charles George VA Medical Center
in Asheville, North Carolina, a facility operated by the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs. As a basis for
her claims, the Plaintiff alleges only as follows:
Due to violation of management and prohibited personnel
practices, I have suffered physical abuse and mental abuse. A
hostile work environment has been created toward me. I have
been bullied daily. I suffer from mental anguish as well as
physical anguish. Management has maliciously slandered me and
caused severe emotional trauma. Humiliation has been bestowed
upon me. I have had general damages toward my vehicle and my
personal items at work. Intimidation from management and
friends of management continues. I suffer from permanent PTSD
with panic attacks and anxiety. Today is “Day 623,
” post needle assault and gun threat.
[Doc. 1 at 9]. She seeks four million dollars in damages.
[Id. at 8].
the Plaintiff has paid the $400 fee associated with the
filing of this action, the statutory screening procedure
authorized under the in forma pauperis statute, 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), is not applicable. Nevertheless,
the Court has inherent authority to dismiss a complaint when
it is apparent that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. United States ex rel. Vuyyuru v.
Jadhav, 555 F.3d 337, 347 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[W]hen
a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an
action, the action must be dismissed.”). The lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at
any time. See Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis,
Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008). “If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the Plaintiff
cites a number of federal criminal statutes. [Id. at
7]. Reliance on federal criminal statutes, however, is
insufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction, as a
plaintiff cannot assert a private civil action under such
statutes. See Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83, 85-86
(1981) (noting that “a private citizen lacks a
judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or
non-prosecution of another”) (citation omitted);
United States v. Oguaju, 76 Fed.Appx. 579, 581 (6th
Cir. 2003) (noting that no private right of action arises
under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 or 242) Robinson v.
Overseas Military Sales Corp., 21 F.3d 502, 511 (2d Cir.
1994) (holding that criminal statutes do not provide private
causes of action); Dressler v. Jefferson County, No.
2:18-cv-01126, 2019 WL 1052285, at *2 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 17,
2019) (noting that federal criminal statutes do not afford a
plaintiff a private cause of action), report and
recommendation adopted by 2019 WL 1053626 (Mar. 5,
reasons stated herein, the Court concludes that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Complaint is
IS, THEREORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Complaint
is hereby DISMISSED for lack of subject
IS SO ORDERED.
 Specifically, the Plaintiff cites 18
U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), 18 U.S.C. § 287
(false claims), 18 U.S.C. § 351 (assassination,
kidnapping, assault of federal officials), 18 U.S.C. §
552 (aiding importation of obscene material), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1001 (false statements), 18 U.S.C. § 1028
(identify fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (access device
fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (fraud against the United
States), 18 U.S.C. § 1035 (healthcare fraud), 18 U.S.C.
§ 1037(b)(1)(A) (email fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1114
(protection of federal employees), 18 U.S.C. § 1501
(assault on process server), 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury),
18 U.S.C. § 1752 (restricted buildings), 21 U.S.C.
§ 853 (criminal forfeiture), and 8 U.S.C. § 1324
(harboring certain aliens).
 Even if the Court were to disregard
the Plaintiff's citation of federal criminal statutes as
the sole basis for the existence of jurisdiction, the vague
and conclusory nature of the Plaintiff's allegations
prevent the exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in this
case. The Plaintiff fails to allege when and where the events
complained of occurred. She fails to allege that any of the
named Defendants were involved in the events complained of,
and she fails to identify anything that any of the named
Defendants did to harm the Plaintiff. Without such basic
information, the Complaint fails to provide any basis for the
Court to conclude that federal ...