Ariatti-Mangum v. Western Union et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER finding as moot 3 Motion for Process Service by U.S. Marshall; finding as moot 7 Motion for process service by U.S. Marshall; finding as moot 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing 2 Complaint; dismissing 6 Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

VICKI ARIATTI-MANGUM,
Case No. 1:11-CV-149-BLW
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
MARGARET KORB, in her individual
capacity; BRYON TAYLOR, in his
individual capacity; and WESTERN
UNION,
Defendants.

On April 11, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint under the Privacy Act of 1974
against two individuals and Western Union. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants violated her
rights under the Privacy Act by conditioning her receipt of wire transferred funds upon
her proof of her social security number. Plaintiff also filed a request to proceed in forma
pauperis, and a motion for service.
Magistrate Judge Boyle addressed the motions and referred them to me for
disposition. Judge Boyle explained that the application to proceed in forma pauperis may
be granted, but that the Court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who
have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A
complaint or portion thereof should be dismissed if: (1) it is frivolous or malicious; (2) it

M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 1

fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) it seeks monetary relief from
a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(I-iii). A
complaint submitted in forma pauperis “is frivolous if it has no arguable basis in fact or
law.” O’Loughlin v. Doe, 920 F.2d 614, 617 (9th Cir. 1990) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted). In conducting any review, a plaintiff’s pro se pleading must be
liberally construed and she must be given the benefit of any doubt. Resnick v. Hayes, 213
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). Additionally, if the complaint can be saved by
amendment, a plaintiff should be notified of the Complaint’s deficiencies and provided an
opportunity to amend. Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003); see also
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000).
In this case, Judge Boyle explained that Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks relief under
the Privacy Act of 1974 against a private corporation and private individuals for requiring
Plaintiff to disclose her social security number in order to receive a wire transfer, which is
a private service. Judge Boyle explained that “[t]he private right of civil action created by
the [Privacy] Act is specifically limited to actions against agencies of the United States
Government. The civil remedy provisions of the statute do not apply against private
individuals . . . [or] private entities.” Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center,
192 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Unt v. Aerospace Corp., 765 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th
Cir.1985)). Here, Defendants are not a federal agency; they are private individuals and a
private entity to which the Privacy Act claim cannot apply. Accordingly, Judge Boyle
recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 2

granted. I agree.
Judge Boyle recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice and that Plaintiff be given leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to
state a cognizable claim. However, before I entered an order adopting that
recommendation, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint. Therefore, I will address the
Amended Complaint at this point.
The Amended Complaint does not save Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff’s Amended
Complaint asserts essentially the same claims she asserted in her original Complaint,
except that she has removed her reference to the Privacy Act of 1974. However, she
references no alternative law supporting her claims. She makes some suggestion that her
privacy rights were violated, but gives no support for such a claim. Accordingly, I find
that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law for the same reasons her
original Complaint failed as a matter of law. Moreover, because Plaintiff has already
been given an opportunity to amend her complaint, the Court will now dismiss this case
in its entirety without giving Plaintiff another opportunity to amend.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1.

Plaintiff’s Application for Order to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is
DEEMED MOOT.

2.

Plaintiff Motion for Service (Dkt. 3) is DEEMED MOOT.

3.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (Dkt. 7) is DEEMED MOOT.

M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 3

4.

Plaintiff’s Complaint and Amended Complaint shall be DISMISSED.

5.

The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.

DATED: June 1, 2011

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill
Chief U. S. District Judge

M EMORANDUM D ECISION AND O RDER - 4