UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 4, 2012
WILLIAM CRENSHAW, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN SCIANDRA, ET AL., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jonathan W. Feldman United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Pro se plaintiff brings the instant action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging various violations of his constitutional rights. See Complaint (Docket # 1). By Order of Judge David G. Larimer, dated October 14, 2010, all pretrial motions excluding dispositive motions have been referred to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). (Docket # 18). Currently pending before the Court is plaintiff's motion to file a supplement to the Complaint (Docket # 43).
With the instant motion to supplement, plaintiff seeks to add a new cause of action to the Complaint, namely an "obstruction of justice" claim under Sarbanes-Oxley provision 18 U.S.C. § 1503 against defendants Sciandra and Annunziata. (Docket # 43). Section 1503 is a federal criminal statute which makes it unlawful for a person to "corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influence, obstruct, or impede, or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice." 18 U.S.C. § 1503(a). This criminal statute does not provide for a private right of action and, as a result, plaintiff would be unable to establish the defendants' liability on this proposed claim as a matter of law. See Zahl v. Kosovsky, No. 08 Civ. 8308, 2011 WL 779784, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2011)(no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1503); Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180, 190 (D.D.C. 2009)(18 U.S.C. § 1503 is a "federal criminal obstruction of justice statute" which does "not create private causes of action"). Accordingly, since plaintiff's proposed claim would be futile, the Court hereby Orders that plaintiff's motion to supplement (Docket # 43) is denied.
Dispositive motions are currently pending before Judge Larimer (Dockets ## 61, 62) and Judge Larimer has stayed the remaining scheduling order deadlines pending the Court's decision on defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket # 61). See Order (Docket # 69). Plaintiff is advised that he should not file any further motions until Judge Larimer has decided the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff's motion to supplement (Docket # 43) is denied. SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.