Opinion
7:19-CV-7821 (CS)
10-10-2019
CASIMIR GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. MARK ZUCKERBERG; FACEBOOK, all in both their official and individual capacities; DET. JESICA BROOKS #467; PAY PAL; INTELIUS; JANE & JOHN DOE(S) 1-50 (INCLUSIVE), all in their official and individual capacities, all unknown entities, all jointly and severally; PREKASH KONDEPUDI; Defendants.
ORDER OF SERVICE :
Plaintiff, currently held in the Orange County Jail, brings this pro se action asserting claims under federal law, including claims that the defendants have violated his federal constitutional rights. He also asserts claims against them under state law. The Court construes Plaintiff's complaint as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Brooks, a Newburgh police detective, and claims under state law against her and the remaining defendants. By order dated September 30, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis ("IFP"). The Court directs service on Defendants Brooks and Facebook. For the reasons discussed below, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants, but grants Plaintiff leave to amend those claims.
Prisoners are not exempt from paying the full filing fee, even when they have been granted permission to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court must dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b); see Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 2007). The Court must also dismiss a complaint, or portion thereof, when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the "strongest [claims] that they suggest," Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original). But the "special solicitude" in pro se cases, id. at 475, has its limits - to state a claim, a pro se pleading still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.
The United States Supreme Court has held that under Rule 8, a complaint must include enough facts to state a claim for relief "'that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id. But it does not have to accept as true "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action," which are essentially just legal conclusions. Id. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those facts make it plausible - not merely possible - that the pleader is entitled to relief. See id. at 678-79.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff makes the following allegations: Law-enforcement officials, including Defendant Brooks of the Newburgh Police Department, gained access to Plaintiff's Facebook account without Plaintiff's consent or a warrant. Brooks and her partner told Plaintiff that "through Facebook[,] they ha[ve] complete access to all [Plaintiff] say[s] and do[es]." (Doc. 1 at 4B.) All of Defendant Facebook's "policies eventually cross [the] desk" of Defendant Zuckerberg, Facebook's founder and Chief Executive Officer. (Id. at 4A.) "Facebook sell[s] data to . . . (Intelius.com)[,] a[n] information [and] background checking site [owned by Defendant Intelius that is] used heav[i]ly on the black market/underworld . . . . One could use (intelius.com) to gain access to many people/user[s'] social network accounts and much much more personal sensitive information." (Id. at 4D.)
Plaintiff also names Intelius's Chief Executive Officer, Prakash Kondepudi, as well as PayPal and "Jane & John Doe(s) 1-50 (inclusive)" as defendants. But he does not allege any facts about them.
DISCUSSION
A. Service on Defendants Brooks and Facebook
Because Plaintiff has been granted permission to proceed IFP, he is entitled to rely on the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service to effect service. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 123 n.6 (2d Cir. 2013); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process . . . in [IFP] cases."); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) (the Court must order the Marshals Service to serve if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed IFP). Although Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires that the summons and complaint be served within 90 days of the date the complaint is filed, Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and could not have served summonses and the complaint on Defendants Brooks and Facebook until the Court reviewed the complaint and ordered that summonses be issued for these defendants. The Court therefore extends the time to serve Brooks and Facebook until 90 days after the date that the summonses for these defendants are issued. If the complaint is not served on Brooks and Facebook within that time, Plaintiff should request an extension of time for service. See Meilleur v. Strong, 682 F.3d 56, 63 (2d Cir. 2012) (holding that it is the plaintiff's responsibility to request an extension of time for service); see also Murray v. Pataki, 378 F. App'x 50, 52 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) ("As long as the [plaintiff proceeding IFP] provides the information necessary to identify the defendant, the Marshals' failure to effect service automatically constitutes 'good cause' for an extension of time within the meaning of Rule 4(m).").
To allow Plaintiff to effect service on Brooks and Facebook through the U.S. Marshals Service, the Clerk of Court is instructed to fill out a U.S. Marshals Service Process Receipt and Return form ("USM-285 form") for each of these defendants. The Clerk of Court is further instructed to issue summonses for Brooks and Facebook, and deliver to the Marshals Service all of the paperwork necessary for the Marshals Service to effect service on these defendants.
Plaintiff must notify the Court if his address changes, and the Court may dismiss this action is Plaintiff fails to do so.
B. Claims Against the Remaining Defendants
Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts about any of the remaining defendants to comply with the Rule 8 pleading standard. This is so because, even assuming that Plaintiff's allegations are true, Plaintiff does not give enough detail to show that these defendants are legally responsible for any of the alleged legal violations or injuries that he has suffered. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (a complaint must "allow[] the [C]ourt to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant[s] [are] liable for the misconduct alleged" (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556)).
Plaintiff's unsupported assertions that all of Defendant Facebook's policies cross Defendant Zuckerberg's desk and that Defendant Intelius's website is used on the black market are insufficient to suggest that either Zuckerberg or Intelius is legally responsible for any of the alleged legal violations or injuries that Plaintiff has suffered. And Plaintiff alleges no facts about Defendants PayPal, Kondepudi, or the "Jane Doe" and "John Doe" Defendants. Thus, Plaintiff's allegations about these defendants do not state a plausible claim for relief. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 ("[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.").
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint in which he alleges sufficient facts to state a claim for relief against these defendants that satisfies the Rule 8 pleading standard. Plaintiff must "nudge[] [his] claims [against these defendants] across the line from the conceivable to plausible." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
CONCLUSION
The Court directs the Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, together with an information package.
The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to complete USM-285 forms with the service addresses for Defendants Brooks and Facebook, and deliver all documents necessary to effect service on these defendants to the U.S. Marshals Service.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants. But the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his claims against those defendants in an amended complaint no later than November 11, 2019. An amended complaint form is attached.
The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).
The Court further directs the Clerk of Court to docket this order as a "written opinion" within the meaning of Section 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002. SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2019
White Plains, New York
/s/_________
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.
DEFENDANTS AND SERVICE ADDRESSES
1. Detective Jesica Brooks, Badge No. 467
Newburgh Police Department
55 Broadway
Newburgh, New York 12550
2. Facebook
__________ Write the full name of each plaintiff. -against- __________ Write the full name of each defendant. If you cannot fit the names of all of the defendants in the space provided, please write "see attached" in the space above and attach an additional sheet of paper with the full list of names. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section IV. ___CV__________1 Hacker Way
Menlo Park, California 94025
(Include case number if one has been assigned) AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Prisoner) Do you want a jury trial?
[ ] Yes [ ] No
NOTICE
The public can access electronic court files. For privacy and security reasons, papers filed with the court should therefore not contain: an individual's full social security number or full birth date; the full name of a person known to be a minor; or a complete financial account number. A filing may include only: the last four digits of a social security number; the year of an individual's birth; a minor's initials; and the last four digits of a financial account number. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2.
I. LEGAL BASIS FOR CLAIM
State below the federal legal basis for your claim, if known. This form is designed primarily for prisoners challenging the constitutionality of their conditions of confinement; those claims are often brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (against state, county, or municipal defendants) or in a "Bivens" action (against federal defendants). [ ] Violation of my federal constitutional rights [ ] Other: __________
II. PLAINTIFF INFORMATION
Each plaintiff must provide the following information. Attach additional pages if necessary. __________
First Name __________
Middle Initial __________
Last Name __________ State any other names (or different forms of your name) you have ever used, including any name you have used in previously filing a lawsuit. __________ Prisoner ID # (if you have previously been in another agency's custody, please specify each agency and the ID number (such as your DIN or NYSID) under which you were held) __________
Current Place of Detention __________
Institutional Address __________
County, City __________
State __________
Zip Code
III. PRISONER STATUS
Indicate below whether you are a prisoner or other confined person: [ ] Pretrial detainee [ ] Civilly committed detainee [ ] Immigration detainee [ ] Convicted and sentenced prisoner [ ] Other: __________
IV. DEFENDANT INFORMATION
To the best of your ability, provide the following information for each defendant. If the correct information is not provided, it could delay or prevent service of the complaint on the defendant. Make sure that the defendants listed below are identical to those listed in the caption. Attach additional pages as necessary. Defendant 1:
__________
First Name
__________
Last Name
__________
Shield #
__________
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
__________
Current Work Address
__________
County, City
__________
State
__________
Zip Code Defendant 2:
__________
First Name
__________
Last Name
__________
Shield #
__________
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
__________
Current Work Address
__________
County, City
__________
State
__________
Zip Code Defendant 3:
__________
First Name
__________
Last Name
__________
Shield #
__________
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
__________
Current Work Address
__________
County, City
__________
State
__________
Zip Code Defendant 4:
__________
First Name
__________
Last Name
__________
Shield #
__________
Current Job Title (or other identifying information)
__________
Current Work Address
__________
County, City
__________
State
__________
Zip Code
V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM
Place(s) of occurrence: __________ Date(s) of occurrence: __________
FACTS:
State here briefly the FACTS that support your case. Describe what happened, how you were harmed, and how each defendant was personally involved in the alleged wrongful actions. Attach additional pages as necessary. __________
INJURIES:
If you were injured as a result of these actions, describe your injuries and what medical treatment, if any, you required and received. __________
VI. RELIEF
State briefly what money damages or other relief you want the court to order. __________
VII. PLAINTIFF'S CERTIFICATION AND WARNINGS
By signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that: (1) the complaint is not being presented for an improper purpose (such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); (2) the claims are supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument to change existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. I understand that if I file three or more cases while I am a prisoner that are dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim, I may be denied in forma pauperis status in future cases. I also understand that prisoners must exhaust administrative procedures before filing an action in federal court about prison conditions, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that my case may be dismissed if I have not exhausted administrative remedies as required. I agree to provide the Clerk's Office with any changes to my address. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk's Office may result in the dismissal of my case. Each Plaintiff must sign and date the complaint. Attach additional pages if necessary. If seeking to proceed without prepayment of fees, each plaintiff must also submit an IFP application. __________
Dated
__________
Plaintiff's Signature __________
First Name __________
Middle Initial __________
Last Name __________
Prison Address __________
County, City __________
State __________
Zip Code Date on which I am delivering this complaint to prison authorities for mailing: __________