Lewis v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/7/2022. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/7/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

ANTHONY CEASER LEWIS, BK1236112,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Case No. 21-cv-09819-CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
GOOGLE INC., et al.,

(ECF No. 2)

Defendant(s).
Plaintiff, a prisoner at the San Mateo County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint under 42

14

U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Google and Facebook violated his constitutional rights by publishing

15

confidential information of his on the web and other wrongdoing. Plaintiff raised the same

16

allegations against Google and its employees in a prior prisoner complaint, which was dismissed

17

on August 8, 2019 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Lewis v.

18

Google Inc., No. 19-cv-04319-CRB (PR) (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2019) (order of dismissal).

19

A prisoner complaint that merely repeats pending or previously litigated claims may be

20

considered abusive and dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Cf. Cato v. United

21

States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th

22

Cir. 1988)) (duplicative in forma pauperis complaint may be considered abusive and dismissed

23

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915). Because plaintiff raised and litigated the same allegations and claims

24

raised herein in Lewis v. Google Inc., No. 19-cv-04319-CRB (PR), the instant complaint is

25

deemed duplicative and abusive under § 1915A. That plaintiff adds Facebook a defendant in this

26

later-filed action does not compel a different result. See Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021 (complaint

27

repeating same allegations asserted in earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is

28

subject to dismissal as duplicative).

1

To the extent that any allegations in the complaint may be construed as new allegations

2

that Google and Facebook violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights, the allegations are dismissed as

3

frivolous and for failure to state a claim under § 1915A(b) because it is well-established that there

4

is no enforceable claim under § 1983 to be free from constitutional deprivations by private entities

5

and/or individuals such as Google and Facebook. See Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d

6

831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996).

7

For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is DISMISSED as duplicative, frivolous and for

8

failure to state a claim under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and plaintiff’s request to

9

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 2) is DENIED on grounds that
the complaint is clearly frivolous and without merit. See Tripati v. First Nat. Bank & Tr., 821

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A district court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis at

12

the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that the action is frivolous or

13

without merit.”).

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2022
______________________________________
CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2