McFarland v. Pool, 3:14-cv-00622

Plaintiff Philander S. McFarland, a federal inmate, sued Case Manager Stephaine Pool pro se alleging she twice refused to notarize documents he needed for court filings.
Plaintiff filed claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1073, 1509 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court treated the second filing as an amendment that superseded the original complaint.
The criminal statutes cited (18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1073, 1509) provide no private cause of action; court dismissed those claims.
For the § 1983 claim, plaintiff asserted denial of his First Amendment right of access to the courts due to the refusal to notarize pauper/pauper-status documents.
The court found no prejudice: (1) a separate case was dismissed because McFarland failed to timely return signed materials or seek an extension, not solely because of the lack of a notary; (2) in this action McFarland has been granted pauper status, so he suffered no adverse effect from the alleged refusal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 242, 1073, 1509 are privately actionable	McFarland asserted these statutes were violated when Pool refused to notarize his papers	Pool (implicitly) argued criminal statutes do not create private causes of action	Dismissed — criminal statutes do not provide a private right of action
Whether Pool’s refusal to notarize violated McFarland’s First Amendment right of access to courts under § 1983	McFarland argued denial of notarization prevented filing and caused dismissal in another case	Pool argued the dismissal resulted from McFarland’s failure to timely sign/return documents and he suffered no prejudice here because pauper status was granted	Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege prejudice or a viable § 1983 claim
Whether plaintiff was prejudiced by the alleged denial of notary services	McFarland claimed actual prejudice (dismissal of separate suit)	The record showed plaintiff did not comply with court deadlines and did not seek extensions; in this action he received pauper status	Court found no actionable prejudice; claim fails
Whether complaint must be dismissed for lack of a federal claim	N/A (plaintiff sought federal relief)	N/A	Dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a federal claim

Purk v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 1243 (S.D. Ohio 1989) (criminal statutes do not necessarily create a private cause of action)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (prisoners have a First Amendment right of access to the courts)
Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920 (6th Cir. 1985) (prison officials must provide adequate law libraries or alternative legal assistance; plaintiff must show prejudice)
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (prison officials’ obligations to facilitate inmate legal assistance)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (requirements for § 1983 claims include action under color of state law and deprivation of federal rights)