Weigel v. Facebook

Filing 4

ORDER granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Robert Alan Weigel, Motions terminated: 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Robert Alan Weigel., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint IFP/Prisoner filed by Robert Alan Weigel. () Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 3/19/2018. (TCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BUTTE DIVISION
ROBERT ALAN WEIGEL,
CV 18-17-BU-BMM-JCL
Plaintiff,
ORDER, and FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION

vs.
FACEBOOK,
Defendant.
I. In Forma Pauperis Application

Plaintiff Robert Weigel, appearing pro se, filed an application requesting
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He submitted a declaration that makes the
showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears he lacks sufficient
funds to prosecute this action IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Weigel’s
application is GRANTED. This action may proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee, and the Clerk of Court is directed to file Weigel’s lodged Complaint as
of the filing date of his request to proceed in forma pauperis.
The federal statute under which leave to proceed in forma pauperis is
permitted — 28 U.S.C. § 1915 — also requires the Court to conduct a preliminary
screening of the allegations set forth in the litigant’s pleading. The applicable
provisions of section 1915(e)(2) state as follows:
1

(2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have
been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines
that–
(A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal–
(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court will review Weigel’s pleading to consider whether this action can
survive dismissal under the provisions of section 1915(e)(2), or any other provision
of law. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005).
II. Background
Weigel commenced this action challenging Defendant Facebook’s alleged
negligent conduct in harming Weigel’s social life and his Facebook experience. He
portrays himself as the “original internet evangelist” since 1986, and he states that
for the last decade he has worked extensively developing a “social network” with
friends and also with customers relative to an “electronic music repair” business he
operates. But he complains Facebook has damaged his social presence.

2

Specifically, he state Facebook “gave the impression that I’m ignoring a potential
wife and many others[,]” and as a result he has lost friends in his social network.
(Doc. 2 at 4 of 7.) But Weigel does not provide further facts in support of that
conclusory allegation.
Weigel further contends Facebook defrauded him through its alleged
representations about its social media website. He asserts Facebook represented
that it sought “to create a safe, family friendly environment” on its website
platform. (Doc. 2 at 5 of 7.) But he alleges Facebook instead has created “a literal
online gang of stalkers” working to deny him access to the social network of
people he has worked 10 years to establish. (Id.) He complains that Facebook
changed the operating environment of its platform so that it no longer safeguards
against stalkers, bullies and others who manipulate Facebook to engage in a
campaign of defamation, and who seek to remove friends from a person’s social
network. He believes that early on Facebook fraudulently captured an audience of
subscribers, but then subjected “them to psychological abuse and thought
manipulation” apparently inflicted by other Facebook users. (Id.) Facebook has
allowed pornography and other unsavory activities to occur on its website, and
Facebook does not provide a safe environment with high community standards as
it originally represented to consumers.
3

Weigel further alleges Facebook has made fraudulent representations about
him which have harmed his character. But he does not elaborate on the allegation
to explain what those representations were.
Weigel contends Facebook’s failures in its website platform and the social
environment it has created have caused damage to his reputation, character, and his
social network of friends, including a potential spouse. Therefore, he seeks
monetary compensation for his damages.
III. Discussion
Because Weigel is proceeding pro se the Court must construe his pleading
liberally, and the pleading is held “to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers[.]” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). See also
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 330 n.9 (1989). In view of the required liberal
construction,
a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the
pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly
be cured by the allegation of other facts.
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added) (quoting
Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)).
The Court finds that Weigel’s pleading, on its face, at least asserts that the
Court’s jurisdiction over this case is predicated upon diversity of citizenship
4

jurisdiction. Federal law provides that the district courts have jurisdiction over
“civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of
$75,000[,]” and the civil action is between citizens of different States. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a); Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1106
(9th Cir. 2010). Weigel states he is a citizen of Montana, that Facebook is
incorporated under the laws of California with its principal place of business is in
California, and he alleges the amount in controversy is $175,000.
But under the circumstances of Weigel’s allegations, for the reasons
discussed the Court concludes his pleading is subject to dismissal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as it is frivolous, and it does not present plausible,
legitimate, or viable grounds relief.
The court retains discretion in determining whether a pleading is “frivolous.”
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). A pleading is frivolous if it has no
“arguable basis in law or fact.” Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.
1984). See also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Additionally, the term “frivolous [...] embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325. In
considering whether a pleading is frivolous, the court need not “accept without
question the truth of the plaintiff’s allegations.” Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. Rather, the
5

court may “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations” and consider
whether the allegations are “fanciful,” “fantastic,” or “delusional.” Denton, 504
U.S. at 32-33.
As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate
when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to
contradict them.
Denton, 504 U.S. at 33.
Based on the forgoing legal authority, the Court finds that Weigel’s
allegations are “frivolous” as that term is defined above. The Court’s summary of
his allegations presented above reflects that his allegations are fanciful, delusional,
or fantastic. In substance, Weigel perceives that his reputation, character, and
social presence has been harmed by the way in which Facebook has operated it
website platform and environment. Facebook has purportedly created a social
environment that has permitted other Facebook users to cause harm to Weigel, and
he alleges Facebook’s negligence and fraudulent representations as to the
wholesome nature of the platform are to blame. And while Weigel further suggests
Facebook made adverse representations about him to others, he does not identify
any specific representation about him made by Facebook.

6

Therefore, the Court concludes Weigel’s allegations present irrational and
wholly incredible claims. He presents no plausible underlying factual basis for his
assertions, and his allegations appear to be based only on his delusional perception
of events and circumstances relative to his experience with, and use of, the
Facebook website. And in substance, Weigel’s allegations suggest that any damage
to his social presence was caused by other Facebook users, not Facebook itself.
Ordinarily, “[d]ismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is
proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not
be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007)
(quoting Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988));
Kendall v. VISA U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2008). But here,
based on Weigel’s frivolous allegations and his delusional perception of harm
allegedly caused by Facebook, the Court finds that an amended pleading from
Weigel would be futile. There exists no plausible basis in fact for the Court to
grant him relief for negligence, fraud, or defamation. Therefore, it is unnecessary
to give Weigel an opportunity to amend his pleading. See Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG
Music Publishing, 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008).
IV. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Weigel’s
7

complaint be DISMISSED as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
DATED this 19th day of March, 2018.

________________________________
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

8