Lettieri v. Facebook et al

Filing 10

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 6/17/2024. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2024)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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID C. LETTIERI,

8

Plaintiff,

FACEBOOK, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 23-cv-06554-HSG

12
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Niagara County Jail, has filed a pro se action.

13
14

His complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is now before the Court for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff

15

has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
DISCUSSION

16
17

A.

Standard of Review

18

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

19

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

20

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims

21

that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or seek

22

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),

23

(2). Pro se pleadings must, however, be liberally construed. See United States v. Qazi, 975 F.3d

24

989, 993 (9th Cir. 2020).

25

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

26

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “Specific facts are not

27

necessary; the statement need only “‘give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the

28

grounds upon which it rests.’” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citations omitted).

1

While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual allegations, it demands more than an unadorned,

2

the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009).

3

A pleading that offers only labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

4

cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement does not suffice. Id.

5

B.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

Procedural History
The complaint names as defendants the company Facebook, Facebook employee Tyler

7

Harmon, and Western District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Bonnano

8

and Maeve Eileen Huggins. The complaint makes the following allegations. In May 2023,

9

Plaintiff looked at the Facebook chat that Randall Garver claimed was for discovery. Plaintiff

10

demanded to see the other two to three week chats that the victim had claimed to have had with

11

Plaintiff. Mr. Garver and defendant Bonanno stated that they would get back to Plaintiff, but have

12

not gotten back to Plaintiff as of October 10, 2023. Accordingly, it is safe to say that defendant

13

Harmon lied and committed perjury, and that the chat violated Fed. R. Evid. 901, which governs

14

the authentication or identification of evidence. See generally Dkt. No. 1.

15

The Court DISMISSES this complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief.

16

There is no private right of action under Fed. R. Evid. 901. See, e.g., In re Baldwin-United Corp.

17

(Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litig.), 770 F.2d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 1985) (federal rules of

18

civil procedures are “rule[s] of procedure and create[] no substantive rights or remedies

19

enforceable in federal court.”). In addition, Plaintiff appears to be challenging an evidentiary

20

ruling in an ongoing New York federal court criminal proceeding. This Court cannot review the

21

decisions of other district courts. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir.

22

1987) (federal district court also lacks authority to issue writ of mandamus to another district

23

court). Finally, Plaintiff appears to be bringing a Bivens action against defendants Bonanno and

24

Huggins. However, the Supreme Court has only recognized a viable Bivens remedy in three

25

contexts: (1) violation of the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth

26

Amendment; (2) gender discrimination pursuant to the equal protection component of the due

27

process clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) deliberate indifference to an inmate's health care

28

needs under the Eighth Amendment. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth
2

1

Amendment); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Fifth Amendment); Bivens v. Six Unknown

2

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Fourth Amendment).

3

Expanding the Bivens remedy to new contexts – such as the prosecutorial misconduct alleged here

4

– is a “disfavored judicial activity,” and courts “consistently refuse[ ] to extend Bivens to any new

5

context or new category of defendants.” Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017). The

6

dismissal of this action is with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v.

7

BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment is basis for denial of

8

leave to amend).
CONCLUSION

9

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DISMISSES this action with prejudice. The

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated:

6/17/2024
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3