Cohen v. Newsom et al

Filing 47

ORDER RE: REMAINING ISSUES (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, he alleges that the freezing of his website constituted a taking of his property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Second Amended Complaint ¶ 17. The Court has already found, however, that SFPD's preservation letter did not freeze plaintiff's website.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW COHEN, v. Plaintiff,

No. C 08-01443 SI ORDER RE: REMAINING ISSUES

GAVIN NEWSOM, et al. Defendants. /

On February 25, 2009, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether defendants "froze" plaintiff's website. [Docket No. 41] Although it was the Court's understanding that it had effectively resolved this action by deciding that defendants did not freeze plaintiff's website, the Court gave plaintiff an opportunity to file a letter brief explaining what issues he believes remain undecided. Now before the Court is plaintiff's letter brief, in which he argues that the remaining issue is whether the San Francisco Police Department violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by sending Go Daddy, Inc. an evidence preservation letter pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f). Plaintiff does not clarify in his letter brief what constitutional rights can be violated by the transmission of an evidence preservation letter.1 He appears to argue that the transmission of the evidence preservation letter violated his due process rights because defendants acted for "political reasons," rather than in furtherance of a legitimate criminal investigation. Plaintiff cites no authority, however, for the proposition that 18 U.S.C. § 2703(f) requires evidence preservation letters be sent only pursuant to legitimate criminal investigations. Plaintiff also appears to argue that the transmission of the evidence preservation letter violated

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

his due process rights because it affected plaintiff's relationship with Go Daddy. Specifically, when plaintiff asked Go Daddy for help adding "privacy" to his account, a Go Daddy employee responded that she could not talk to him for "legal reasons." Plaintiff cites no authority for the proposition that the employee's refusal to talk with plaintiff could constitute a taking of plaintiff's property. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to articulate a theory whereby the SFPD's transmission of an evidence preservation letter violated his constitutional rights. Accordingly, the Court concludes that no issues remain to decided in this case and the entry of judgment is appropriate. The case management conference currently scheduled for April 3, 2009 is hereby VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2009

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2