Opinion
3:22-cv-00520-YY
05-06-2022
DAMIAN C. STRICKLAND, Plaintiff, v. META, Defendant.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Youlee Yim You, United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS
On April 13, this court granted plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing by May 4, 2022, why this case should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, file an amended complaint curing the defects in the complaint. Instead, on May 4, 2022, plaintiff filed a document “[r]equesting pretrial evidentiary hearing” pursuant to “RFC Rule 26.” ECF 8. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
The IFP statute provides that “[n]otwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines . . . the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction; . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and . . . a demand for the relief sought, which may include in the alternative or different types of relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). “Rule 8 does not require ‘detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2006) (citations omitted). “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id.
Federal courts hold a pro se litigant's pleadings to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987); see Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (per curiam) (holding a document filed pro se “is to be liberally construed”; a plaintiff need only give the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds on which it rests) (citation omitted). “Although . . . pro se litigant[s] . . . may be entitled to great leeway when the court construes [their] pleadings, those pleadings nonetheless must meet some minimum threshold in providing a defendant with notice of what it is that it allegedly did wrong.” Brazil v. U.S. Dep't of Navy, 66 F.3d 193, 199 (9th Cir. 1995).
In addition to determining whether the complaint states a claim for relief, this court is always obligated to determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case. Valdez v.Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).
In the complaint, which plaintiff brings against Meta, i.e., Facebook, plaintiff claims this court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1442. However, that statute pertains to when federal officers or agencies may be sued or prosecuted; it does not apply to defendant, a private entity.
Plaintiff otherwise alleges “Meta is curating my accounts” and he wants to know if “Meta prevents my content from being seen.” He seeks two billion dollars in damages, which he describes is a “small percentage of Meta's holdings for taking a large percentage of my self expression and character.” Plaintiff cites to no federal statutory or constitutional authority for such a claim. Plaintiff also has failed to comply with Rule 8 in that he has not alleged a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
Because plaintiff has failed to establish that the court has jurisdiction and has failed to state a claim for relief, this case should be dismissed without prejudice.
SCHEDULING ORDER
These Findings and Recommendations will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any, are due Friday, May 27, 2022. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement on that date.
If objections are filed, then a response is due within 14 days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendations will go under advisement.
NOTICE
These Findings and Recommendations are not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of a judgment.