Major v. Social Security Administration

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 1, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-03199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MATTHEW BENJAMIN MAJOR, 11 Case No. 24-cv-03199 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 13 14 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., 15 Defendants.

18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently housed at the Maguire Correctional Facility in 19 Redwood City, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 20 against the Social Security Administration (“SSA”) and “Google.com.” Dkt. No. 1. 21 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a separate 22 order. 23 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 27 prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 1 cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 2 upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 3 from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally 4 construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 5 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 6 elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 7 violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 8 color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 9 B. Plaintiff’s Claims 10 Plaintiff claims that his last application for social security benefits in February 2022 11 was denied. Dkt. No. 1 at 3. He seeks “back pay” for social security since 2017. Id. He 12 also believes that “Google internet website scapegoated my name and family address to 13 arrest me and spread false news in order to have me shot and stabbed by two different 14 people.” Id. He wants “Youtube to put back all my past videos…” Id. 15 Plaintiff’s claim against Google (or Youtube) is not cognizable under § 1983 16 because these business entities are not state actors. Purely private conduct, no matter how 17 wrongful, is not covered under § 1983. See Ouzts v. Maryland Nat'l Ins. Co., 505 F.2d 18 547, 550 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 949 (1975). Furthermore, the allegations 19 are not sufficient to establish the violation of a constitutional right, as they are largely 20 nonsensical and conclusory. Dkt. No. 1 at 4-6. It appears beyond doubt that Plaintiff can 21 prove no set of facts in support of this claim which would entitle him to relief. See 22 Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Plaintiff cannot 23 correct these deficiencies in an amendment, this claim shall be DISMISSED for failure to 24 state a claim for relief. 25 Furthermore, Plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the decision by the SSA through a 26 section 1983 action is inappropriate. Rather, he may use the court form, “Complaint for 1 || administrative decision. Accordingly, that claim shall be dismissed without prejudice to 2 || filing a new action using the appropriate form and paying the appropriate fees. 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the claim against Google.com is DISMISSED for failure 6 || to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Plaintiff may pursue an appeal of the 7 || denial of social security benefits against the SSA in a new action. The Clerk shall include 8 || acopy of the form complaint with a copy of this order to Plaintiff. 9 The Clerk shall terminate any pending motions and close the file. 10 IT ISSO ORDERED. 11 || Dated: — October 1, 2024 foul hacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 13 14 o 15 16

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Dismissal PRO-SE\BLF\CR.24\03199Major_dism(ftsac) 26 27