Franklin v. Mayer

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 8/2/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 No. C 17-3606 WHA (PR) BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, MARISSA MAYER, Defendant. 13 / 14 INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights case under 42 16 17 U.S.C. 1983 alleging that defendant, the Chief Executive Officer of Yahoo!, Inc., violated his 18 constitutional rights to due process and privacy. He is granted leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis in a separate order. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is DISMISSED for 20 failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. ANALYSIS 21 22 A. STANDARD OF REVIEW 23 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 24 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 25 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 26 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 27 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro 28 se pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 1 (9th Cir. 1990). 2 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the 3 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." "Specific facts are not necessary; the 4 statement need only '"give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . . claim is and the grounds 5 upon which it rests."'" Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (citations omitted). 6 Although in order to state a claim a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations, . . . a 7 plaintiff's obligation to provide the 'grounds of his 'entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than 8 labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not 9 do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65 (2007) (citations omitted). A 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 complaint must proffer "enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. 12 at 1974. 13 B. LEGAL CLAIMS 14 Plaintiff alleges that defendant caused Yahoo!, Inc., to issue materially false and 15 misleading statement in its public filings and other public statements. He further alleges that in 16 doing so, she breached her fiduciary duty, garnered unjust enrichment, and violated Sections 17 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act. He claims that these actions violated his 18 constitutional rights to due process and to privacy. 19 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements: 20 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) 21 that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. 22 West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Defendant is a private citizen and does not act under 23 color of state law. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims are not cognizable under Section 1983 and will 24 be dismissed. 25 It is noted that plaintiff requests to “become a party” to pending class actions against 26 defendant that cover his securities fraud claims. To do so, plaintiff must contact the lawyers 27 representing the plaintiffs, the class representative(s), or seek to intervene in the cases 28 2 1 themselves. Cf. Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013) (individual suit may be 2 dismissed when it duplicates an existing class action's allegations and prayer for relief); 3 Gillespie v. Crawford, 858 F.2d 1101, 1103 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc) ("Individual members of 4 the class and other prisoners may assert any equitable or declaratory claims they have, but they 5 must do so by urging further actions through the class representative and attorney, including 6 contempt proceedings, or by intervention in the class action."). 7 8 9 For the reasons set out above, this case is Dismissed for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: August For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 CONCLUSION 12 2 , 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?