Ferrell v. My Life
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Theodore D. Chuang on 7/31/2015. (kw2s, Deputy Clerk) (c/m 7/31/15)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLA:"D
KEYONNA
FERRELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. TDC-15-1619
MY LIFE.
Defendant.
MEMORANDU:\I
On June 2, 2015, PlaimitT Kcyonna
Complaint, Ecr NO.1,
01'11'0'101'0'
Ferrell ("Ferrell")
filed the above-captioned
together \vith a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, ECr NO.2.
Ferrell appears indigent, therefore, she is granted leave to proceed in fimna pauperis.
IIACKGROUND
The Complaint concerns Ferrell's claim that Defendant My Life ("My Life") has been in
her "search results for the past few months," and that her full address is available on its \\o'cbsite.
Compl. at 2. Ferrell alleges that she called the company to have the information taken dov"n and
was told it would take 7.10 business days to have it completely removed from major search
engines. IJ. She admits the information was then removed, but states that the information \\las
"up for a while," and since she is "connected to celebrities" the information being available
caused "obvious emotional distress and a security concern."
Id. at 2-3.
She seeks damages
ranging from $300,000 to $500,000, and an injunction ordering that her profile and all
information about her to be removed permanently. IJ. at 13.
IlISCUSSIO:-;
I. Failure to State a Claim
Under 28 U.S.C. ~1915 this Court is granted the discretion to dismiss a proceeding Jiled
in forma pauperis if it determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.s.C. *1915(e)(2)(B)(i).(iii).
lIere, the Complaint fails to state a
claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. a plaintiff is required to provide "a short and
plain statement ufthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and each avemlcnt ofa
pleading must be "simple, concise, and direct," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) & (d)(I).
A pleading
must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroji v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
A claim is plausible when
"the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."
courts have a duty to construe self.representcd
Iqhal, 556 U.S. at 678. Although district
pleadings liberally, a pro :se plaintiff must
nevertheless allege facts that state a cause of action and provide enough detail to illuminate the
nature of the claim and allow defendants to respond. See F:rickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007); Beaudell v. City af Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th eir. 1985) (stating that the duty
to construe pro :se pleadings liberally docs not require courts to "conjure up questions never
squarely presented").
In this case, the instant Complaint does not allege any actionable conduct by My Life,
and "places an unjustifiable burden on defendants to determine the nature of the claim against
them and to speculate on what their defenses might be." Holsey v. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 123
(D. Md. 1981) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Spencer v. Hedges, 838
2
F.2d 1210, 1988 WL 9621, at *1 (4th Cif. Feb. 1, 1988). Ferrell's conclusory statement that she
has suffered "obvious emotional distress" is an insufficient basis for a cause of action, making
dismissal under Rule 8 appropriate.
A court may dismiss a complaint that is "so confused,
ambiguous, vague or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is \vell disguised."
Salahllddin v. ClIomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cif. 1988). Accordingly, the Court concludes that the
Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and will be dismissed.
I
Ill. ~Iotion to Seal
..
Ferrell also filed a Motion to Seal the case on June 10,2015.
ECF NO.3. The full text of
the Mution states: "Please [sJeal all civil suits filed including address, names and (dJocuments
immediately [sic)." 'd. On July 6, 2015, Ferrell liled a second ~1otion to Seal, ECF NO.5, in
\vhich she supplemented her original request by asserting that the Court should seal all filings in
this civil case because "celebrities and [B]arack [arc] involved," making the case "substantially
more noteworthy."
Jd. at I.
Local Rule 105.11, \vhich governs the sealing of all documents filed in the record, states
10
relevant part: "Any motion seeking the sealing of pleadings, motions, exhibits or other
documents to be filed in the Court record shall include (a) proposed reasons supported by
specific factual representations to justify the sealing and (b) an explanation \vhy alternatives to
The Court also notes that there is a significant question whether venue is proper in this
District. Venue \vould be proper if the defendant is a resident of Maryland, or if a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in Maryland. 28 U.S.c.
1391(b). Ferrell has provided the Court with her addresses in Virginia and South Carolina.
There is no indication that any of events in this case occurred in Maryland, and there is a
substantial question whether My Life can be deemed to be a resident of Maryland. See 28
U.S.c. S 1391(c)(2) (noting that a corporation is "deemed to reside in any judicial district in
\vhich such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction \",'jth respect to the civil
action in question"). Thus, even if the Complaint staled a cognizable claim, this action likely
should have been brought in Virginia or South Carolina, where Ferrell presumably has accessed
the internet, or in \vhatever stale it can be established My Life resides.
*
3
sealing would not provide sufficient protection."
Local Rule 105.1\ (D. Md. 2014). The rule
balances the public's general right to inspect and copy judicial records and documents, see Nixon
V.
Warner Comme 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). with competing interests that sometimes
outweigh the public', right, see In re Knightl'ub/'g
Co., 743 F.2d 231, 235 (4th Cir. 1984). The
common-law presumptive right of access can only be rebutted by showing that "countervailing
interests heavily ouhveigh the public interest in access." Doe v. Pub, Citizen. 749 F.3d 246. 26566 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Rushford v. New Yorker ,\/oga:;ne, Inc., 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir.
1988ยป.
Because neither of the Motions to Seal identify such a countervailing
interest, the
Motions are denied.
CONCLUSIOi"
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Proceed in Fonna Pauperis, EeF No.2,
GRANTED.
The Motions to Seal the case, ECF Nos. 3 & 5, are DENIED.
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. A separate Order follows.
Date: July 31, 2015
THEODORE D. CII '
United States Distric ud
4
is
The case is
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?