Housman v. Meta Platforms Inc.

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 Jennifer Housman, Case No. 2:25-cv-00731-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff Order Overruling Plaintiff’s Objection and Adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report 6 v. and Recommendation

7 Meta Platforms Inc., et al., [ECF Nos. 5, 6] 8 Defendants

9 10 Plaintiff Jennifer Housman filed this lawsuit against Meta Platforms Inc., TikTok, 11 Reddit, and X, alleging violations of her rights under the First Amendment. Compl., ECF No. 1-1. 12 In brief, Housman alleges that these social media platforms engaged in “repeated censorship, 13 shadow banning, and account restriction” in violation of her right to free speech. Id. at 2. Because 14 Housman is proceeding in forma pauperis, United States Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah 15 screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Order, ECF No. 3. Therein, Judge 16 Youchah finds that Housman fails to state a claim under the First Amendment. She explains that 17 “the First Amendment provides protection for free speech, with an important limitation that 18 ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech’ and ‘does not prohibit private abridgment of 19 speech.’” Id. at 2 (emphasis in original) (citing Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802, 20 808 (2019). However, Judge Youchah allowed Housman one opportunity to amend her 21 complaint to allege facts demonstrating that the government is responsible for the specific 22 conduct of which she complains. Id. at 4. Housman filed an amended complaint on May 15, 2025. 23 Am. compl., ECF No. 4. Judge Youchah’s latest report and recommendation (R&R) finds that 24 Housman’s amended pleading “fails to allege a single fact demonstrating that any action, let 25 alone a specific action, taken by Meta, TikTok, or X was traceable or even attributable to some 26 right or privilege created or imposed by the government or by a person for whom the 1 government is responsible.” R&R, ECF No. 5 at 3. She therefore recommends that I dismiss 2 Housman’s amended complaint without leave to amend. Id. Housman objects to the 3 recommendation of dismissal. Obj., ECF No. 6. Because Housman has not demonstrated that the 4 magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the 5 objection is overruled and accept the R&R in its entirety. 6 I. Standard of Review 7 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and 8 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where a party 9 objects to a report and recommendation, the court “shall make a de novo determination of those 10 portions of the report which objection is made.” Id.; see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). However, if no 11 objections are filed, the district court need not conduct a de novo review. United States v. Reyna- 12 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Under the de novo standard, the magistrate judge’s 13 findings and recommendations are independently reviewed to determine whether they are 14 clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly erroneous” if the court 15 has “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. 16 Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); Burdick v. Comm’r, 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). “An 17 order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law[,] or rules 18 of procedure.” UnitedHealth Grp., Inc. v. United Healthcare, Inc., 2014 WL 4635882, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 19 16, 2014). 20 II. Discussion 21 Judge Youchah recommends that Housman’s amended complaint be dismissed without 22 prejudice for failure to state a claim. R&R, ECF No. 5. I agree with Judge Youchah’s 23 recommendation because a review of the pleadings shows that amendment would be futile. 24 Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that amendment is futile if 25 “no set of facts can be proved under the amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a 26 valid and sufficient claim or defense.”). In her objection, Housman admits that she “now understands that the First Amendment applies only to government actors.” Obj., ECF No. 6 at 2. 2|| However, she requests that I reconsider the recommendation to dismiss so that she may refile 3} under alternative and appropriate legal theories. Id. A dismissal without prejudice allows a 4|| plaintiff an opportunity to re-file their case with the court, under a new case number, or so that they may re-file claims in state court. Housman is free to file a new action with new legal 6]| theories if she wishes, but she is not permitted to use a second amended complaint in this action 7|| as the channel to pursue a new lawsuit. Housman also asks the court for clarification or 8]| suidance regarding jurisdiction for her potential false advertising, consumer fraud, breach of contract, or deceptive business practices claims. Id. However, the court cannot provide an advisory opinion or give a party legal advice. See, e.g, Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 1]}] (1998) (noting that federal courts lack authority to issue advisory opinions). For those reasons, I 12] overrule Housman’s objection and accept Judge Youchah’s R&R in full. Conclusion 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Housman’s objection [ECF No. 6] is overruled, and the 15] magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 5] is accepted and adopted in its 16]| entirety. 17 This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to enter 18]| judgment accordingly, and to close this case. / ‘} 19 Dated: July 2, 2025 Lf 20 f L f 2 —— 1 vo States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26