Lewis v. Microsoft Corporation et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/28/2023. (nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COlJRT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RACQUEL LEWIS ,
Plaintiff,
: Civil Action No. 23-416-RGA

V.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION AND
ALEXIS COATES ,
Defendants.

Racquel Lewis, Wilmington , Delaware. Pro Se Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

November){2023
Wilmington,~ elaware

Plaintiff Racquel Lewis appears prose and has been granted leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (0 .1. 5). She commenced this action on April 17, 2023 . (0 .1. 3) .
Pending are th ree motions to seal (0 .1. 1, 6, 9), a motion to add a charge of employment
discrimination (0 .1. 7) , and a motion to stop Microsoft (0 .1. 8) . The Court proceeds to
screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship .

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff names as Defendants Microsoft Corporation and Alexis Coates. Ms.
Coates is described as "a Microsoft Developer and an Educator contracted by Baltimore
City/County Schools ." (0 .1. 3) . The only other allegation naming her is, "Alexis Coates
blocked an email on March 31 , 2023 to EEOC by use of Microsoft Exchange." (Id.).
How Ms. Coates managed this is left to the imagination .
The allegations in the complaint are at best cryptic. But I think what Plaintiff is
saying is that various entities use a Microsoft service known as a "custom mail flow rule"
that sometimes result in the blocking of Plaintiffs emails .1 Plaintiff lists two dates when
an email was blocked-1/3/23 & 3/31/23 . She lists other dates with other events .
"January 24 , 2023 - Microsoft Azure Wave was located in my hotspot connected with
storage of 710 MB. " "January 27 , 2023 -Azure Blob was connected to my email
browser activity ." February 9, 2023 & April 16, 2023 - "Game Center on Phone was

1

The clearest example is when Plaintiff states , "Public Safety, CCBC - Community
College of Baltimore County uses Microsoft products to cause blocks , intentional
frustrations. " (0 .1. 3 at 5) . Plaintiff later attaches a message stating that an email was
blocked by a custom mail flow rule . (0 .1. 7-1).

1

active without my consent or knowledge." Plaintiff describes this activity as Microsoft
having "hacked [her] computers," blocking her online transactions , including an email to
a supervisor with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and court filings , and
as "ongoing retaliation ." She requests $2 million in damages and a "[c]omplete end to
all activity of Blocking ." (Id. at 7) .
SCREENING OF COMPLAINT

A federal court may properly dismiss an action sua sponte under the screening
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8) if "the action is frivolous or malicious , fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted , or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." Ball v. Famiglio , 726 F.3d 448 , 452 (3d Cir.
2013) (quotation marks omitted) ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (in forma pauperis
actions) . The Court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take
them in the light most favorable to a pro se plaintiff. See Phillips v. County of Allegheny,
515 F.3d 224 , 229 (3d Cir. 2008) . Because Plaintiff proceeds prose , her pleading is
liberally construed and her Complaint, "however inartfully pleaded , must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. " Erickson v. Pardus , 551
U.S. 89, 94 (2007) .
A complaint is not automatically frivolous because it fails to state a claim . See
Dooley v. Wetzel, 957 F.3d. 366 , 374 (3d Cir. 2020) . Rather, a claim is deemed
frivolous only where it relies on an '" indisputably meritless legal theory' or a 'clearly
baseless' or 'fantastic or delusional' factual scenario. "' Id.
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant
to§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is identical to the legal standard used when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6)
2

motions. Tourscher v. McCullough , 184 F.3d 236 , 240 (3d Cir. 1999). A well-pleaded
complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662 (2009) ; Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must
plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v.
City of Shelby, 574 U.S. 10, 12 (2014) (per curiam) . A complaint may not be dismissed ,

however, for imperfect statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See id. at 11 .

A court reviewing the sufficiency of a complaint must take three steps : (1) take
note of the elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim ; (2) identify allegations that,
because they are no more than conclusions , are not entitled to the assumption of truth ;
and (3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations , assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Connelly v. Lane
Constr. Corp ., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) . Elements are sufficiently alleged when

the facts in the complaint "show" that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
679 (quoting Fed . R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) . Deciding whether a claim is plausible will be a
"context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience
and common sense." Id.
DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs complaint, even when viewed in the light most favorable to her, does
not state a claim . The use of labels such as "hacking " and "retaliation" does nothing to
aid her case. The cryptic descriptions of events on various identified dates, while they
undoubtedly frustrate Plaintiff, give no factual basis to believe that Microsoft is
committing some tort, breaching some contract, or otherwise violating some law.
3

Plaintiff's motions to seal will be denied. There is a "strong presumption of
openness [which] does not permit the routine closing of judicial records to the public."
Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 , 551 (3d Cir. 1994) (internal citation omitted) .
Plaintiff has not met the "heavy burden" of showing that "disclosure will work a clearly
defined and serious injury" to her, Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen , 733 F.2d 1059, 1071
(3d Cir. 1984), or that closure is "essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly
tailored to serve that interest," Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk Cnty. ,
457 U.S. 596 , 606 , 102 S. Ct. 2613 , 73 L. Ed . 2d 248 (1982).
Plaintiff's motion to add a charge of employment discrimination will be construed
as a motion for leave to amend and will be denied as futile . At a minimum , employment
discrimination would require that Plaintiff sought employment with , or was employed by,
Microsoft, neither of which she alleges . Plaintiff's motion to stop Microsoft will be
denied .

CONCLUSION
For the above reasons , the Court will dismiss the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). While I suspect amendment is futile , Plaintiff will be given
until December 20 , 2023 , to file an amended complaint. Failure to do so will result in
the case being closed .
An appropriate Order will be entered.

4