Vaughn v. Youth

Milton I. Shadur Senior United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

On June 29 Khalid Vaughn ("Vaughn") filed a complaint against a defendant whom he identified as Jobs for Youth ("Jobs"), utilizing the form of Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights provided by the Clerk's Office for use by pro se plaintiffs. Vaughn also accompanied the Complaint with two other Clerk's-Office-supplied documents: an In Forma Pauperis Application ("Application") and a Motion for Attorney Representation ("Motion").

As it turns out, Jobs is no longer in existence, for the Illinois Secretary of State's Office reports that the actual name of the corporation was Jobs for Youth-Chicago, Inc. and reflects that the corporation was involuntarily dissolved on January 10, 2014. But that is the least of Vaughn's problems in turning to the federal courts for relief, for his purported claim (on whose substance this Court expresses no views) is not within federal jurisdiction.

Here is Paragraph 1 of Vaughn's Complaint:

This is a claim for violation of plaintiff's civil rights as protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986.

But as for Section 1983, its coverage is limited to defendants who are "state actors" (those who act "under color" of law, as the statute puts it), and Jobs was a private not-for-profit corporation that did not come within that scope. Section 1985 covers two or more parties "who engage in a conspiracy to interfere with civil rights," and that doesn't apply here either. And the coverage of Section 1986 extends only to persons who have knowledge that a conspiracy covered by Section 1985 is about to be committed and have power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of that violation -- also inapplicable here.

In short, because federal courts have only such powers as Congress has conferred upon them, and because Vaughn's attempted lawsuit simply does not fit within the powers so conferred, federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Accordingly both the Complaint and this action are dismissed with prejudice, and the Application and Motion are therefore denied as moot.

/s/_________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge
Date: July 1, 2015