JUSTIN CARTER, Case No. 25-cv-09131-JCS Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant.
Plaintiff Justin Carter, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court granted his application. See Docket No. 4. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint does not appear to allege federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may file either an amended complaint or a response to this order addressing why his complaint is sufficient, no later than December 10, 2025. The Case Management Conference set for January 21, 2026 is vacated. II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1 In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation, breach of contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) based on allegations that Meta baselessly closed his Instagram account for allegedly violating its terms of use. Plaintiff alleges that he used his Instagram account for his freelance programming work and 1 Because the factual allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint are generally taken as true in the context of determining whether the complaint states a claim, this section summarizes Plaintiff’s had amassed over 9,500 followers. Although Plaintiff subsequently opened a new Instagram account, that account, along with his Facebook account, was also suspended for the same alleged violation. Plaintiff seeks an injunction restoring his accounts and an award of damages in the amount of $5,000. A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition, the Court must dismiss a complaint where no basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent from the allegations. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). B. Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Court must address whether there is federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. See B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling within their jurisdiction. The two most common forms of federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists as to “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction exists where all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants and at least $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although Plaintiff states in his complaint that this case is brought in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not pointed to any violation of federal law, the United States Constitution or any “treaties of the United States.” Likewise, Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although the complaint indicates that Plaintiff is a 1 that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Further, in light of Plaintiff’s request for 2 $5,000 in damages, it appears that it is not. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 5 should not be dismissed on the basis that there is no fede
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JUSTIN CARTER, Case No. 25-cv-09131-JCS Plaintiff, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant.
Plaintiff Justin Carter, pro se, applied to proceed in forma pauperis and the Court granted his application. See Docket No. 4. The Court now reviews the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether it satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the complaint does not appear to allege federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the complaint should not be dismissed. Plaintiff may file either an amended complaint or a response to this order addressing why his complaint is sufficient, no later than December 10, 2025. The Case Management Conference set for January 21, 2026 is vacated. II. ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT1 In his complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for defamation, breach of contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage against Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) based on allegations that Meta baselessly closed his Instagram account for allegedly violating its terms of use. Plaintiff alleges that he used his Instagram account for his freelance programming work and 1 Because the factual allegations of a plaintiff’s complaint are generally taken as true in the context of determining whether the complaint states a claim, this section summarizes Plaintiff’s had amassed over 9,500 followers. Although Plaintiff subsequently opened a new Instagram account, that account, along with his Facebook account, was also suspended for the same alleged violation. Plaintiff seeks an injunction restoring his accounts and an award of damages in the amount of $5,000. A. Legal Standards Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6) Where a plaintiff is found to be indigent under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, courts must engage in screening and dismiss any claims which: (1) are frivolous or malicious; (2) fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996). In addition, the Court must dismiss a complaint where no basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent from the allegations. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). To state a claim for relief, a plaintiff must make “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Further, a claim may be dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); see also Diaz v. Int’l Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13, 474 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). In determining whether a plaintiff fails to state a claim, the court takes “all allegations of material fact in the complaint as true and construe[s] them in the light most favorable to the non- moving party.” Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Nat’l League of Postmasters of U.S., 497 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2007). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a complaint’s allegations as true is inapplicable to legal conclusions [and] mere conclusory statements,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)), and courts “do not necessarily assume the truth of legal conclusions merely because they are cast in the form of factual allegations.” Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but must Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Where the complaint has been filed by a pro se plaintiff, courts must “construe the pleadings liberally . . . to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). “A pro se litigant must be given leave to amend his or her complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded on other grounds by statute, as recognized in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Further, when it dismisses the complaint of a pro se litigant with leave to amend, “the district court must provide the litigant with notice of the deficiencies in his complaint in order to ensure that the litigant uses the opportunity to amend effectively.” Id. (quoting Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992)). “Without the benefit of a statement of deficiencies, the pro se litigant will likely repeat previous errors.” Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)). B. Discussion As a preliminary matter, the Court must address whether there is federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. See B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction and may only hear cases falling within their jurisdiction. The two most common forms of federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal question jurisdiction exists as to “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Diversity jurisdiction exists where all plaintiffs are citizens of different states from all defendants and at least $75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although Plaintiff states in his complaint that this case is brought in federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, Plaintiff has not pointed to any violation of federal law, the United States Constitution or any “treaties of the United States.” Likewise, Plaintiff does not allege facts sufficient to establish diversity jurisdiction. Although the complaint indicates that Plaintiff is a 1 that the amount in controversy is more than $75,000. Further, in light of Plaintiff’s request for 2 $5,000 in damages, it appears that it is not. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case 5 should not be dismissed on the basis that there is no federal jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff 6 may respond by filing either an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies discussed 7 above or a response that addresses why her current complaint is sufficient. Plaintiff's response 8 shall be filed by December 10, 2025. If Plaintiff does not file a response by that date, the case 9 will be reassigned to a United States district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed 10 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 11 Any amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number used in this order 12 and the words FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the first page. Because an amended 13 complaint completely replaces the previous complaint, any amended complaint may not 14 incorporate claims or allegations of Plaintiff’s original complaint by reference, but instead must 15 include all of the facts and claims Plaintiff wishes to present and all of the defendants he wishes to a 16 sue. 3 17 Plaintiff, who is not represented by counsel, is encouraged to consult with the Federal Pro 18 Bono Project’s Legal Help Center in either of the Oakland or San Francisco federal courthouses 19 for assistance. The San Francisco Legal Help Center office is located in Room 2796 on the 15th 20 floor at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The Oakland office is located in 21 Room 470 S on the 4th floor at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. Appointments can be made 22 by calling (415) 782-8982 or emailing federalprobonoproject@ sfbar.org. Lawyers at the Legal 23 Help Center can provide basic assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide 24 legal representation. 26 Dated: November 11, 2025 27 € i is C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge