Levy v. AT&T Corporation

Filing 6

ORDER granting IFP Application 2 and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 1/26/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
MARC OLIN LEVY,

No. C-11-06615 (DMR)

13
Plaintiff(s),
14
v.
15

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S IFP
APPLICATION AND DISMISSING
CASE FOR FAILURE TO STATE A
CLAIM

AT&T,
16
17

Defendant(s).
___________________________________/

18
On December 22, 2011, Plaintiff filed this action pro se in conjunction with an Application
19
to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”). [Docket Nos. 1-2.] In his complaint, Plaintiff
20
states that Defendant AT&T Corporation failed to publish his advertisement in its December 201121
2012 Yellow Pages phone book. He seeks $227.5 billion in damages.
22
After reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP Application, the court determines that Plaintiff meets the
23
financial requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The court therefore GRANTS the application. The
24
court nevertheless must dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), because it fails
25
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Even taking into account the court’s duty to
26
construe pro se pleadings liberally, see Bernhardt v. L.A. Cnty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.2003),
27
the court cannot discern a cognizable legal claim based on Defendant’s alleged mere refusal to not
28

1

publish Plaintiff’s advertisement in the style and with the content that he desired. The court

2

therefore dismisses Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice.1

S
UNIT
ED

o
Judge D

DERED

DONNA M. RYU
United States Magistrate Judge u
M. Ry

RT

7

ER

9

A

H

8

nna

LI

6

R NIA

5

O OR
IT IS S

FO

Dated: January 26, 2012

RT
U
O

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

NO

3

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

A magistrate judge generally must obtain the consent of the parties to enter dispositive
rulings and judgments in a civil case. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). However, in cases such as this
one, where the plaintiff has consented but not served the defendants, “all parties have consented
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1),” and a magistrate judge therefore “‘may conduct any or all
proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case.’” Gaddy v.
McDonald, No. 11-CV-8271, 2011 WL 5515505, at *1 n.2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (not reported in
F. Supp. 2d) (quoting § 636(c)(1)) (citing United States v. Real Property, 135 F.3d 1312, 1317 (9th
Cir. 1995)); Third World Media, LLC v. Doe, No. C-10-4470 LB, 2011 WL 4344160, at *3 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 15, 2011)); see also Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 532 (5th Cir.1995) (holding that
magistrate judge had jurisdiction to dismiss . . . action . . . as frivolous without consent of defendants
because defendants not yet served and therefore not parties).

2