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)

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