Johnson v. Zuckerberg

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 TYLER D. JOHNSON, Case No. 23-cv-03910-AMO (PR)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 10

11 MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiff Tyler D. Johnson, an inmate in Missouri, filed the present civil rights action 14 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, representing himself. He has been granted leave to proceed in 15 forma pauperis. 16 On March 13, 2024, the Court conducted an initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 17 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), and found that

18 the allegations and prayer for relief in the instant complaint seem to be a duplicate of those of an existing class action, In re Facebook, 19 Inc., Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, Case No. 18-md- 2843-VC (N.D. Cal.) (“In re Facebook”) (Dkt. 491 at 89-250 of Case 20 No. 18-md-2843-VC (setting forth factual allegations regarding violations of data privacy), Dkt. 491 at 89-250 of Case No. 18-md- 21 2843-VC 354 ¶ 1383 (seeking damages)). 22 Dkt. 11 at 3. The Court also determined that while Johnson argued in a conclusory fashion that 23 his suit had “nothing to do with the legal claims related to In re Facebook,” see id. (citing Dkt. 5 at 24 4), Johnson’s argument was “unavailing,” especially since his allegations and request for monetary 25 damages were duplicative of those in In re Facebook, see id. Accordingly, the Court concluded 26 that the complaint should be dismissed as duplicative. See id. (citing Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 27 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013)). The Court also denied Johnson’s motion for class certification, his 1 The Court further found that Johnson seemed to meet the criteria of being a class member 2 and, as a Missouri resident, a member of the Missouri “subclass” of In re Facebook. See id. at 3-4 3 (citing Dkts. 491 at 252 ¶ 764(a) and 254 ¶ 764(a)(xiv) of Case No. 18-md-2843-VC). The Court 4 pointed out that that case had reached a settlement, see id. at 4 (citing Dkt. 1118 of Case No. 18- 5 md-2843-VC), but that Johnson did not allege he opted out of the settlement, see id. Because 6 Johnsons did not allege he opted out, the Court directed him to “submit any claim for damages to 7 the settlement administrator of In re Facebook, whose contact information is listed in the 8 settlement website: www.FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com.” Id. The Court added:

9 The settlement website says that anyone can email the settlement administrator at info@FacebookUserPrivacySettlement.com, call 10 him/her at 1-855-556-2233, or mail any inquiries to Facebook Consumer Privacy User Profile Litigation, c/o Settlement 11 Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 12 Id. 13 The Court further instructed Johnson that if he wished to seek other forms of equitable 14 relief, then he must do so by urging further action through the class representative and class 15 counsel, or by intervention in the class action, not by filing a separate, individual case. Id. (citing 16 Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc))). Finally, because it was 17 possible that Johnson could have opted out of the settlement agreement, the Court concluded that 18 “the instant dismissal [was] with leave to amend, and Johnson will need to allege that he opted out 19 of the class action settlement in an amended complaint . . . .” Id. The Court granted Johnson 20 twenty-eight days to file an amended complaint to cure the pleading deficiencies, or to suffer 21 dismissal of the action. Id. at 10-11. 22 Johnson subsequently filed an amended complaint. Dkt. 12. Johnson names similar 23 defendants and makes similar allegations as in his original complaint. Compare Dkt. 1 with Dkt. 24 12. He also attempts to name multiple plaintiffs, but, as mentioned, the Court has previously 25 denied Johnson’s motion for class certification. See Dkt. 11 at 4-5. 26 The Court has reviewed Johnson’s amended complaint and finds that it does not cure the 27 pleading deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order dismissing the original complaint with leave 1 agreement even though he was instructed to do so. See Dkt. 12. Also, Johnson does not make any 2 || further arguments as to whether or not his legal claims are related to those in In re Facebook. 3 Accordingly, Johnson’s claims are DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE. 4 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and close the file. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 28, 2024 7 8 . ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28