1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NICHOLAS J. WATZKE, Case No. 23-cv-00890-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 9 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMSSING CASE 10 INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL STAGE EMPLOYEES, et Re: ECF No. 1 11 al., Defendants. 12 13 14 Plaintiff Nicholas Watzke filed this pro se action. Watzke submitted an application to 15 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, which includes affidavit showing that he is unable to pay 16 the fees required to commence the instant action. See

(a). Accordingly, 17 Watzke’s application is granted. The Court now screens Plaintiff’s complaint, ECF No. 1, 18 pursuant to

(e)(2). 19 I. STANDARD OF REVIEW 20 Under

(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court shall dismiss an action brought by a plaintiff 21 proceeding in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action fails to state a claim on which 22 relief may be granted. See Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) 23 ([S]ection 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis 24 complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The standard for 27 determining whether a plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under § 1 to state a claim. Watison v. Carter,

(9th Cir. 2012). “Dismissal is proper 2 only if it is clear that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of the claim that would 3 entitle him to relief.”

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed and the Court must take as 4 true all allegations of material fact stated in the complaint and construe them in the light most 5 favorable to the plaintiff.

6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The complaint names as defendants the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage 8 Employees, Charles Watzke, and Renee Kopie. ECF No. 1 at 2. In the complaint, Watzke alleges 9 that he was kidnapped when he was a child, that his children were kidnapped and extorted to 10 induce Watzke to work for an unidentified entity or entities, and that he was denied his 11 inheritance. Id. at 4. Watzke seeks one billion dollars in damages and brings claims under 18

, 242, 1111, 1113, 2381, 2384, and 50 U.S.C. Ch. 44. 13 The Court DISMISSES this action for the following reasons, each of which is an 14 independent ground for dismissal. 15 First, Watzke brings all but one of his claims under federal criminal statutes that do not 16 provide private rights of action. Aldabe v. Aldabe,

(9th Cir. 1980) (no 17 private right of action under

, 242); Steen v. Rostram, No. 12-cv-15016, 2012

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 19, 2012) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. 19 § 1111); Yegorov v. Spain, No. 2:18-cv-1732-KJM-EFB PS,

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 20 Jul. 17, 2019) (no private right of action under

); Barrett v. Biden, No. 1:22-cv- 21 02823 (UNA),

, at *2 (D.D.C. Oct. 25, 2022) (no private right of action under 22

); Carmichael v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 19-cv-01750-GPC-AGS,

6716728, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2019) (no private right of action under

). 24 Consequently, those claims must be dismissed. As to the final claim, Watzke invokes Chapter 44 25 of Title 50 of the U.S. Code, which concerns matters of national security. The complaint fails to 26 specify which section of Chapter 44 governs Watzke’s claim, there are no facts alleged in the 27 complaint that implicate national security, and the court is unaware of any provision in Chapter 44 1 Tenn. Dep’t Hum. Servs., No. 3:08-0306,

, at *2-3 (M.D. Tenn. May 14, 2008). 2 Second, the complaint lacks facts sufficient to “give the defendant[s] fair notice of what 3 the .. . claim[s] [are] and the grounds upon which [they] rest[]. Erickson v. Pardus,

, 4 || 93 (2007) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007)). The complaint does 5 || not identify who allegedly kidnapped Watzke and his children, who allegedly extorted Watzke, 6 where Watzke allegedly worked, for whom Watzke allegedly worked, what the source of 7 || Watzke’s alleged inheritance was, how these events had any bearing on that inheritance, or when 8 || these events allegedly occurred. The complaint thus fails to proffer “enough facts to state a claim 9 for relief that 1s plausible on its face.” Twombly,

. 10 Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. The dismissal is with 11 prejudice because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub.,

522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008). The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || Dated: April 5, 2023 .

Z JON S. TIGA a 16 nited States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28