FILED

UNITEI) sTATEs I)ISTRICT coURT DEC ' 2 2013 FoR THE 1)1sTR1cT oF CoLUMBIA c%¢:rrg icgdrst.hos;z|r;;_zl az sankwp:¢y 9 c of columbia GREGoRY s. GooDYEAR, ) Plaintiff, § v. § civil Action No. /.?~ / 706 DEPARTMENT oF JUSTICE, er az., § Defendants. l MEMoRANDuM oPINIoN

This matter is before the Court upon consideration of plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. The application will be granted, and the complaint will be dismissed.

Plaintiff appears to allege a conspiracy among a Florida judge, the Lee County State Attomey’s Office, and officers of the Cape Coral Police Department to deprive him of his civil rights. He brings this action under

and

and 842. All ofthe named defendants, however, are federal agencies or officials to whom § 1983 does not apply. See Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm ’n,

(D.C. Cir. 2005) ("Section 1983 does not apply to federal officials acting under color of federal law."); see also District of Columbia v. Carter,

(1973) (stating that "actions of the Federal Government and its officers are at least facially exempt" from the proscriptions of § 1983). Plaintiff fares no better with his purported claims under criminal law, as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes. See McCray v. Hola'er,

(D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

(concluding that "district court correctly held that there is no private right of action under

and 242"); Hernandez v. District ofColumbia,

(D.D.C.

2012) (dismissing claims "under

, 242, and 245 . . . as there is no private right of action under these criminal statutes").

An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately.

. k , ., United States District Judge DATE; ll w 5/ 3 g "