Robert G. Cason v. Middlesex County Prosecutors Office

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 24-1969
__________
ROBERT G. CASON,
Appellant
v.
MIDDLESEX COUNTY PROSECUTORS OFFICE; OLD BRIDGE POLICE
DEPARTMENT; OFFICER G. BRACHT; ANTONIO J. TOTO; PUBLIC DEFENDERS
OFFICE NEWARK NJ; SAYREVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; C. TEATOR
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-05503)
District Judge: Honorable Robert Kirsch
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 9, 2025
Before: BIBAS, FREEMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: May 20, 2025)
___________
OPINION*
___________
PER CURIAM
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Robert G. Cason appeals pro se from the District Court order which dismissed his
amended complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). For the following
reasons, we will affirm.
I
In September 2022, Cason filed a short complaint against the Middlesex County
Prosecutors’ Office (MCPO) and other state and private Defendants alleging that they
had committed fraud and perjury in a court proceeding. After the District Court dismissed
the complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8, Cason filed an amended complaint, adding a few Defendants. Cason’s
amended complaint is centered upon two documents that the MCPO filed in a civil rights
action Cason pursued in D.N.J. Civ. No. 18-cv-2101.1 The first document was MCPO’s
June 15, 2021 affidavit and certificate of service at the end of its motion to dismiss,
which, according to Cason, falsely asserted that MCPO had served Cason and falsified
Cason’s signature. The second document was a July 20, 2021 letter from the MCPO
asking the District Court relist its motion to dismiss the complaint because Cason had not
been properly served. According to Cason, the inconsistency between these two
documents is proof of fraud and forgery. He seeks damages based on Defendants alleged
violation of (1) 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (making false statements); (2) 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail
1 This Court affirmed the dismissal of Cason’s amended complaint in D.N.J. Civ. No. 18-
cv-2101. See Cason v. Middlesex Cty. Prosecutors Office, C.A. No. 23-1545, 2024 WL
4455675 (3d Cir. Oct. 10, 2024) (per curiam) (not precedential).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
fraud); (3) 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (perjury); and (4) 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (making false
declarations). He sought monetary damages as relief.
The District Court sua sponte dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court explained that, inter alia, the federal criminal
statutes relied upon by Cason did not provide him with a private right of action, and, in
any event, that the two documents relied upon by Cason did not show any wrongdoing.
Cason appealed. He also filed in our Court a motion requesting relief from
“Circuit Court Judgments and Orders Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).”
II
We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise
plenary review over the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal of Cason’s amended
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d 366, 373 (3d
Cir. 2020).
III
The District Court correctly dismissed Cason’s amended complaint. The criminal
statutes on which he relies do not create a private right of action. See Bauer v. Elrich, 8
F.4th 291, 295 (4th Cir. 2021) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1621); Lee v.
United Stages Agency for Int’l Dev., 859 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (no private right of
action under 18 U.S.C. § 1001); Day v. Bond, 500 F.3d 1127, 1138-39 (10th Cir. 2007)
(no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1623); Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, 167

-- 3 of 4 --

4
F.3d 402, 407-08 (8th Cir. 1999) (collecting cases and finding no private right of action
under 18 U.S.C. § 1341). To the extent Cason complains that the District Court was
biased, nothing in the record supports that assertion.
IV
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.2
2 We have considered all of the arguments Cason made on appeal in Dkt. # 10, 11, 15,
and 18 and they do not warrant further discussion. Cason’s Rule 60(b) motion is denied.

-- 4 of 4 --