Straw v. LinkedIn Corp.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 5:22-cv-07718
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Case No. 22-cv-07718-VKD

Plaintiff, 9 SCREENING ORDER RE AMENDED v. COMPLAINT 10 Re: Dkt. No. 22 11 LINKEDIN CORP., et al. Defendants. 12

13 14 On December 7, 2022, plaintiff Andrew U.D. Straw, filed an “Employment Discrimination 15 Complaint” against LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”), alleging that LinkedIn unlawfully closed 16 his “longstanding LinkedIn.com account for having complained about the discrimination of [his] 17 former employer, the Indiana Supreme Court.” Dkt. No. 1 at 1. The complaint indicates that Mr. 18 Straw is a lawyer. He is representing himself in this matter. 19 Mr. Straw was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), and service of process on 20 LinkedIn was completed by the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”). See Dkt. Nos. 2, 5, 21 13. Mr. Straw then filed a “Notice Per 28 U.S.C. § 1446,” stating that he “wish[es] to remove two 22 cases from Indiana state courts to this court”—namely “In re Straw, 98S01-1601-DI-12, 68 23 N.E.3d 1070 (Ind. 2/14/2017)” and “Straw v. Indiana, 53C06-2110-PL-2081 (Monroe Cty Cir. Ct. 24 #6).” Dkt. No. 14 at 1 & ¶¶ 20, 21. After LinkedIn moved to dismiss Mr. Straw’s complaint (Dkt. 25 No. 15), Mr. Straw timely filed an amended complaint, as of right. See Dkt. No. 22; see also Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 15(a).1 The amended complaint names two additional defendants—the State of Indiana 27 1 and G. Michael Witte—by virtue of the purported removal of the two Indiana state court cases to 2 this Court. See Dkt. No. 22 ¶¶ 14-16, 20, 22, 149, 152; see also Dkt. Nos. 22-52 & 22-55. Noting 3 that he has been granted IFP status, Mr. Straw has now filed a “Motion for Service of Defendants 4 Per 28 U.S.C. § 1446,” in which he requests an order directing the Clerk of Court to issue 5 summons as to the State of Indiana and Mr. Witte and directing USMS to effect service of process 6 on them. Dkt. No. 41. 7 “A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening of any complaint filed by an 8 individual proceeding in forma pauperis.” Castro v. Pascual, No. 20-cv-01090-BLF, 2020 WL 9 733127, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). “The screening 10 requirement applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners.” Id.; see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 11 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to 12 prisoners.”). “The court’s screening obligation extends beyond the original complaint, as the court 13 ‘shall dismiss the case at any time’ if it determines that the plaintiff’s pleading is frivolous or 14 malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a 15 defendant who is immune from such relief.” Castro, 2020 WL 733127 at *1; see also 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1915(e)(2). 17 As noted above, Mr. Straw seeks to proceed with his amended complaint in this Court 18 against the State of Indiana and Mr. Witte, through the purported removal of two Indiana state 19 court cases. See Dkt. No. 22 ¶¶ 14-16, 20, 22, 149, 152; see also Dkt. Nos. 22-52 & 22-55. Mr. 20 Straw’s attempt to remove the two Indiana state court cases to this Court by means of a notice or 21 motion in this Court is improper. “A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action 22 from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division 23 within which such action is pending a notice of removal . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (emphasis 24 added). Mr. Straw asserts that he is banned from filing any documents in the U.S. District Court 25 for the Southern District of Indiana, which this Court assumes is the Indiana federal district where 26 the two state cases are pending. See Dkt. No. 14 ¶ 23; Dkt. No. 22-56. However, Mr. Straw offers 27 no authority for removing the Indiana state cases to this Court, nor does any basis for removal 1 in this district have found that even California state cases from outside this district cannot properly 2 || be removed here. See, e.g. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Luna, No. C-12-6432-EMC, 2013 WL 3 |} 450843, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2013) (noting that case from San Joaquin Superior Court in 4 || Eastern District of California could not properly be removed to Northern District of California). 5 It is not clear whether Mr. Straw can state any claim against the State of Indiana or against 6 || Mr. Witte as to which this Court may properly exercise jurisdiction and as to which venue is also 7 proper. Mr. Straw may file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in this 8 order by February 16, 2023.” If Mr. Straw fails to file a second amended complaint by that date, or if 9 the second amended complaint fails to cure the defects identified with respect to claims asserted 10 against the State of Indiana or Mr. Witte, the Court will issue an order reassigning the case to a district 11 judge with a recommendation that any claims asserted against the State of Indiana or Mr. Witte be a 12 dismissed and that his “Motion for Service of Defendants Per 28 U.S.C. § 1446” be denied.?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

v 14 || Dated: February 6, 2023

7.” 16 Uigiuin Qa □□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 17 United States Magistrate Judge 3 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Pe 25 > This Court expresses no opinion as to the merits of LinkedIn’s pending motion to dismiss Mr. Straw’s amended complaint, which has not yet been fully briefed. See Dkt. No. 31. 26 3 All named parties, whether served or unserved, must consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction before a 07 magistrate judge may hear and decide a case. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1); Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017). Because the Court does not have the consent of all parties to magistrate judge 2g || Jurisdiction, the Court may not issue a dispositive decision with respect Mr. Straw’s claims against unserved defendants the State of Indiana and Mr. Witte.