Summary
finding that defendant news providers and their employees were not state actors
Summary of this case from McConaughy v. The Times Leader NewspaperOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10CV-11-H.
April 6, 2010
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, Connie Marshall, filed this pro se action against Steve Duncan, WHAS, Channel 11, and WLKY, Channel 32. Plaintiff claims that Defendants "violated FCC Rules and the Communications Act of 1934, Conspired to sabotage Ms. Marshall's Campaign by fraud and defrauding the public, Violated Equal Protection Act (as the Major's Office is a job), and Violated Political Policies and blatantly continuously denied me equal treatment and equal rights because I am a black female." Plaintiff's complaints stem from Defendants' failure and/or refusal to cover her candidacy for mayor of Louisville Metro.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), which governs in forma pauperis proceedings, the Court has a mandatory duty to screen initial filings. McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997). Specifically, a district court must dismiss an action that the court finds to be frivolous or malicious or that fails to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim and as frivolous.
FCC Rules and the Communications Act of 1934
The fairness doctrine imposes a general duty that licensees provide adequate coverage of important public issues and that such coverage reflects the major viewpoints held on the topic in dispute. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, (1973). Enforcement and vindication of the public interests which the fairness doctrine serves are vested in the Federal Communications Commission. Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. CBS News, 485 F. Supp. 893, 903 (W.D. Mich. 1980); Gordon v. National Broadcasting Co., 287 F. Supp. 452, 455 (S.D.N.Y. 1968). Under its regulations and procedures, an aggrieved individual may, in a proper case, obtain relief from this administrative agency. The sole function of the courts in enforcing the fairness doctrine is to review final orders of the Federal Communications Commission. See id. The instant complaint contains no hint that Marshall has applied to the Federal Communications Commission for relief. Accordingly, any claim based on Federal Communications Commission Rules must be dismissed for failure to exhaust the federal administrative remedies provided by Congress.
Equal Employment Rights — Title VII
Section 1983 claims
See Sutherland v. Mich. Dep't of Treasury344 F.3d 603612Minnis v. McDonnell Douglas Tech. Servs. Co.162 F. Supp. 2d 718729 42 U.S.C. § 1983Albright v. Oliver510 U.S. 266271Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.457 U.S. 922937Id. See, e.g. Davis v. Janczewski22 F. App'x 533534Hall v. Witteman2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77479
Furthermore, a news station has a First Amendment free press right to refuse to cover material submitted to it. See Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). For this reason, a federal court cannot compel a news provider to cover a story submitted to it by a citizen. Id. at 255-56. Because the defendants cannot be compelled by a federal court to cover Marshall's candidacy, her complaint fails to state a claim for relief.
Section 1981 claims
Forty-two U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of private contracts. Marshall's complaint does not allege the existence of a contract between herself and Defendants. Furthermore, neither white citizens nor non-white citizens have a contractual right to have material published by a newspaper or covered by a particular television station. See Groswirt v. Columbus Dispatch, No. 00-3451, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33466, *5-6 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2000).
Conspiracy/Fraud claims
"The in forma pauperis statute, unlike Rule 12(b)(6), `accords judges not only the authority to dismiss a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.' `Examples of the latter class,' we said, `are claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal district judges are all too familiar.'" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-38 (1989)). "A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them." Id. at 33.
Plaintiff's conspiracy and fraud claims are based on the type of "fantastic," "delusional" and "incredible" allegations that warrant dismissal as factually frivolous. Essentially, Plaintiff believes that Defendants are part of a vast state and federal conspiracy against her that has been going on for over six years (and has been the subject of dozens of lawsuits in this Court). This alleged conspiracy is illogical and delusional. See Knight v. Foxworth, No. 6:07cv70, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61727 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2007) ("In this case, it is apparent that Knight's claims of monitoring by unseen enemies via computer, through the plumbing and air vent in his cell, are irrational and wholly incredible."). Accordingly, Plaintiff's fraud and conspiracy claims will be dismissed as frivolous.
The Court will enter a separate order of dismissal.