Medina v. Facebook, Meta Platforms, Inc. Meta et al

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing the case without prejudice, with instructions to the Clerk. Signed by Judge Brian J. Davis on 11/28/2023. (LDO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
DEREK VERNON MEDINA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 3:23-cv-1348-HLA-MCR

FACEBOOK, META PLATFORMS, INC.
Meta Facebook, Social Media Platform,
Official Capacity
and
MARK ZUCKERBERG, Owner,
Individual Capacity
Defendants.
_________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Plaintiff, Derek Vernon Madina, an inmate of the Florida penal system,
initiated this action pro se by filing a civil rights Complaint (Complaint) (Doc.
1) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff names as Defendants “Facebook, Meta
Platforms, Inc. Meta Facebook, Social Media Platform” (Facebook) and Mark
Zuckerberg, owner. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims there has been a violation of his
due process rights as his name has been destroyed. Id. at 3. In his statement
of claim, Plaintiff alleges that on August 8, 2013, he posted a picture of his wife
on Facebook. Id. Plaintiff states that his wife attempted to kill him, and he
defended himself. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that Facebook refused to take
the picture down until the Federal Bureau of Investigation directed Facebook

to do so forty-eight hours afterwards. Id. Apparently, Plaintiff alleges that the
Facebook posting resulted in his being labeled “Facebook Killer” by the media.
Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff complains that Facebook has made money off of his name
and the moniker “Facebook Killer.” Id. at 4. Although not a model of clarity,
Plaintiff may also be attempting to challenge his criminal conviction, claiming
he did not receive a fair trial. Id. As relief, he seeks monetary damages. Id.
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) requires a district court to
dismiss a complaint if the court determines it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B),
1915A(b)(1). Since the PLRA’s “failure-to-state-a-claim” language mirrors the
language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts apply
the same standard. Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997).
See also Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir. 2008).
A complaint is frivolous if it is without arguable merit either in law or in
fact. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Dismissals for failure
to state a claim are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Mitchell, 112 F.3d at 1490 (“The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the
language of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)”). Additionally, courts must read a
plaintiff’s pro se allegations in a liberal fashion. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.
519, 520 (1972). But the duty of a court to construe pro se pleadings liberally
2

does not require the court to serve as “de facto counsel” for the plaintiff.
Freeman v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., 679 F. App’x 982, 982 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing
GJR Inv., Inc. v. Cnty. of Escambia, 132 F.3d 1359, 1369 (11th Cir. 1998)).
Plaintiff raises a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. “[S]ection 1983 provides
a method for vindicating federal rights conferred by the Constitution and
federal statutes.” Bannum, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 901 F.2d 989, 997
(11th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted). To successfully plead a § 1983 claim, a
plaintiff must allege two elements: “(1) that the act or omission deprived
plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws
of the United States, and (2) that the act or omission was done by a person
acting under color of law.” Id. at 996–97 (citations omitted). Thus, a plaintiff
must show that the defendant acted under the color of law or otherwise showed
some type of state action that led to the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. Id.
“Section 1983 provides judicial remedies to a claimant who can prove
that a person acting under color of state law committed an act that deprived
the claimant of some right, privilege, or immunity protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States.” Hale v. Tallapoosa Cnty., 50 F.3d
1579, 1582 (11th Cir. 1995). Of import, “[o]nly in rare circumstances can a
private party be viewed as a ‘state actor’ for section 1983 purposes.” Rayburn
ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001) (quoting Harvey
3

v. Harvey, 949 F.2d 1127, 1130 (11th Cir. 1992)). To show a defendant acted
under color of state law, the plaintiff must allege a sufficient relationship
between the defendant and the state. See Farrow v. West, 320 F.3d 1235, 1239
n.3 (11th Cir. 2003). Therefore, to establish such a relationship between a
private-party defendant and the state, a plaintiff must demonstrate that one
of three conditions is met:
(1) the State has coerced or at least significantly
encouraged the action alleged to violate the
Constitution (“State compulsion test”); (2) the private
parties performed a public function that was
traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State
(“public function test”); or (3) “the State had so far
insinuated itself into a position of interdependence
with the [private parties] that it was a joint
participant in the enterprise[]” (“nexus/joint action
test”).
Rayburn, 241 F.3d at 1347 (quoting NBC, Inc. v. Comm. Workers of America,
860 F.2d 1022, 1026–27 (11th Cir.1988)).
Upon review, Plaintiff does not allege that any named Defendant is a
state actor subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is suing the
owner of Facebook and Facebook, a publicly traded company. These
Defendants are not state actors. A private party rarely can be considered a
state actor for purposes of section 1983 and here Plaintiff does not allege any
of the three causal connections outlined above to attempt to establish the
4

Defendants acted under color of state law. See Stevens v. Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local 219, 812 F. App’x 815, 820 (11th Cir. 2020) (finding the
plaintiff failed to allege a causal connection between the state and private
corporation or publicly traded bank although the plaintiff’s complaint alleged
a civil rights violation).1 Rayburn, 241 F.3d at 1347.
Therefore, this case is due to be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Accordingly, it is
ORDERED:
1.

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2.

The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without

prejudice, terminate any pending motions, and close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida, this 28th day of
November, 2023.

Insofar as Plaintiff desires to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement
and/or seeks release from incarceration, those claims sound in habeas corpus. Since
Plaintiff’s convictions are from Miami-Dade County, the appropriate United States
District Court would be the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. See Medina v. State, 260 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2018) (affirming the
conviction for second-degree murder, shooting or throwing a deadly missile, and child
neglect following a jury trial in Miami-Dade County).
1

5

sa 11/27
c:
Derek Vernon Medina

6