Thieriot v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 ELISABETH I. THIERIOT, Case No. 24-cv-07476-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 10 v. RECOMMENDATION; DISMISSING CASE COMPANY, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Plaintiff Elisabeth Thieriot sues Defendants Pacific Gas & Electric Company and 15 Mari Kryder Becker (allegedly a PG&E executive) for ending service to her home after she 16 failed to pay her bills and instead sent an IRS Form that, according to her, required the 17 U.S. government to pay her utility bills. SAC (dkt. 16) ¶¶ 15, 58–67, 74. She asserts 18 claims under the U.S. Constitution, the Uniform Commercial Code, and federal and state 19 statutes. Id. ¶¶ 22–51. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse screened Thieriot’s initial and first 20 amended complaints, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and found them frivolous. See First 21 Screening Order (dkt. 7); Second Screening Order (dkt. 13). Judge Tse then issued a 22 report and recommendation with respect to Thieriot’s second amended complaint that the 23 complaint be dismissed. See R&R (dkt. 17). Thieriot objected to the report and 24 recommendation. See Obj. (dkt. 19). The Court now adopts Judge Tse’s report and 25 recommendation and dismisses the action. 26 First, Judge Tse recommends that Thieriot’s Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983 27 claims be dismissed because neither PG&E nor Becker is a governmental entity or an 1 in Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., that a private utility company is not a state actor for 2 constitutional purposes when they discontinue service for nonpayment. 419 U.S. 345, 350 3 (1974). Relying on Jackson, the Ninth Circuit held that PG&E is not a state actor. Mathis 4 v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 891 F.2d 1429, 1431 (9th Cir. 1989); accord Cornejo v. Tumlin, 5 No. 20-cv-5813-CRB, 2021 WL 4893392, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2021) (same). 6 Accordingly, the Court dismisses these claims with prejudice, as amendment would be 7 futile. 8 Second, and in a similar vein, Judge Tse recommends that Thieriot’s Fifth 9 Amendment claim be dismissed because the Fifth Amendment applies only against the 10 federal government, and neither PG&E nor Becker is a federal actor. R&R at 3–4 (citing 11 Johnston v. Earle, 245 F.2d 793, 796 n.5 (9th Cir. 1957)). This too is correct, and 12 amendment would be futile, so the Court therefore dismisses this claim with prejudice. 13 Third, Judge Tse recommends that Thieriot’s claims under article I of the U.S. 14 Constitution and Public Law 73-10 be dismissed for lack of a private right of action. Id. at 15 4; Second Screening Order at 4–5. This is right: nothing in article I, § 8, clauses 3 or 5 of 16 the U.S. Constitution (which, respectively, grant Congress the power to regulate foreign 17 and interstate commerce and to coin money) or in Public Law 73-10 (which suspended the 18 gold standard in the United States) creates or implies a private right of action. See 19 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286–87 (2001). These claims are therefore futile, 20 and the Court dismisses them with prejudice. 21 Fourth, Judge Tse recommends that Thieriot’s claims under various federal statutes 22 be dismissed without prejudice because Thieriot does not plausibly allege violations of 23 these statutes. R&R at 4. The Court agrees that Thieriot has failed to state a claim but 24 concludes that Thieriot’s claims are legally futile. As to 15 U.S.C.§§ 1615 (regulating loan 25 refunds), 1662 (regulating advertising), 1692e (prohibiting false and misleading 26 representations), and 1693k (prohibiting the compulsory use of electronic fund transfers), 27 Thieriot’s appears to rest all of her claims on the fundamentally flawed belief that she 1 || at4—5. Were this a legally sound theory, she might have alleged enough facts to state a 2 || claim. But Forms 1099-A and 1099-C are reporting forms, not methods of payment. 3 || Thus, Thieriot’s assertions that PG&E and Becker refused to apply those IRS Forms as 4 || payment, SAC 4 36, imposed unlawful conditions on the extension of credit by doing so, 5 || id. 9 33, misled her as to the adequacy of those forms as methods of payment, id. □ 34, and 6 || refused to accept non-electronic payment, id. §] 35, all fail as a matter of law. As for 31 7 || U.S.C. § 3123, that statute addresses how the federal government pays the public debt; it 8 || has no relation to this case. The Court thus dismisses Thieriot’s federal statutory claims 9 || with prejudice.! 10 Fifth, Judge Tse recommends that the Court decline to exercise supplemental 11 |} jurisdiction over Thieriot’s state law claims given the dismissal of all of her federal claims. 12 |} R&R at 4-5. The Court agrees that this is the proper procedure pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 13 || § 1367(c)(3). 14 Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE all of Thieriot’s federal 3 |} constitutional and statutory claims and declines to exercise jurisdiction over her state law 16 || claims. She may re-file those claims in a state-court action if she so wishes. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. ck 5 18 Dated: July 14, 2025 I9 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |i 28 U.S.C. § 2201, see SAC 7] 40-41, merely provides federal courts authorization to 97 || render declaratory judgments; it does not itself state a cause of action without some underlying legal basis. Nor does the Uniform Commercial Code, see id. {J 37, 54-57, 2g || provide a basis for liability. See First Screening Order at 4—5 (citing Anderson v. Geithner, No. C 12-901, 2012 WL 1430957, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 24, 2012)).