Lewis v. Google Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ANTHONY CEASER LEWIS, BK1236112, Case No. 21-cv-09819-CRB (PR)

9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 10 v.

11 GOOGLE INC., et al., (ECF No. 2) 12 Defendant(s).

13 Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint under 42 14 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Google and Facebook violated his constitutional rights by publishing 15 confidential information of his on the web and other wrongdoing. Plaintiff raised the same 16 allegations against Google and its employees in a prior prisoner complaint, which was dismissed 17 on August 8, 2019 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lewis v. 18 Google Inc., No. 19-cv-04319-CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (order of dismissal). 19 A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be 20 considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United 21 States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th 22 Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed 23 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Because plaintiff raised and litigated the same allegations and claims 24 raised herein in Lewis v. Google Inc., No. 19-cv-04319-CRB (PR), the instant complaint is 25 deemed duplicative and abusive under § 1915A. That plaintiff adds Facebook a defendant in this 26 later-filed action does not compel a different result. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (complaint 27 repeating same allegations asserted in earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is ] To the extent that any allegations in the complaint may be construed as new allegations 2 || that Google and Facebook violated plaintiffs constitutional rights, the allegations are dismissed as 3 frivolous and for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b) because it is well-established that there 4 || isno enforceable claim under § 1983 to be free from constitutional deprivations by private entities 5 and/or individuals such as Google and Facebook. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 6 || 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996). 7 For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative, frivolous and for 8 failure to state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and plaintiffs request to 9 || proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2) is DENIED on grounds that 10 || the complaint is clearly frivolous and without merit. See Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821 11 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at 12 || the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or

13. |} without merit.”). 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 15 || Dated: January 7, 2022 6 CHARLES R. BREYER 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28