Bledsoe v. Zuckerberg

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 24-2250 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01071-DAD-JDP Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO of Facebook & CIA Agent; FACEBOOK, INC., Social Media,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Donnell Bledsoe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment violation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bledsoe’s action because Bledsoe failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of § 1983 action); Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (explaining state action requirement and that private parties are generally not state actors); see also O’Handley v. Weber, 62 F.4th 1145, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2023) (setting forth the two- step framework to analyze state action).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-2250