Martin v. Green Dot Corporation

Filing 12

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/26/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

YOHONIA MARTIN,

4

Plaintiff,

5
6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

vs.
GREEN DOT CORPORATION,

7

Defendant.

8
9
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 14-00206 YGR (PR)

/
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He

11 has also filed an application for in forma pauperis status.
12

For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's claim as not cognizable

13 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
14

DISCUSSION

15 I.

Legal Standard

16

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a prisoner seeks

17 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
18 § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that
19 are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary
20 relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings
21 must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
22

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential elements:

23 (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and
24 (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v.
25 Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).
26 II.

Legal Claim

27

Plaintiff names the following private Defendant, Green Dot Corporation, an issuer of prepaid

28 MasterCard and Visa cards in the United States. Plaintiff claims he purchased prepaid cards from

1 Defendant, but he "noticed inconsistencies in refunds documented . . . ." (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff
2 further claims he is "due refunds to which [Defendant is] disallowing [him] back to 2004." (Id.)
3 However, this Defendant cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
4

Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant was acting under color of state law. Action taken by

5 a private organization may be under color of state law "if, though only if, there is such a close nexus
6 between the State and the challenged action that seemingly private behavior may be fairly treated as
7 that of the State itself." Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 531 U.S.
8 288, 295 (2001) (internal quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has found state action when a
9 challenged activity results from the State's exercise of coercive power, when the State provides
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10 significant encouragement for the activity, or when a private actor operates as a willful participant in
11 joint activity with the State. See id. Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting
12 the conduct of Defendant could fairly be treated as conduct of the State itself.
13

Because Plaintiff's allegations against Defendant involve purely private conduct, they do not

14 meet the standards for cognizable claims under section 1983.1 See id.
15

CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's claim against Defendant is not cognizable and is

17 DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this
18 Order, terminate all pending motions, and close the file.
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 DATED: February 26, 2014

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Nor may Plaintiff establish subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of diversity of
citizenship since he fails to allege that he meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
P:\PRO-SE\YGR\CR.14\Martin0206.dismiss(private).wpd

2