RANDALL v. FACEBOOK, INC. et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 6/22/17. 6/22/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E-MAILED AND FAXED.(jpd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMSEY RANDALL

CIVIL ACTION

FILE

v.

Ju N 22 2017

NO ~ 1 7 - 15 2 6

FACEBOOK, INC., et al.

KATE BARKMAN, Clerk
By
Dep. Clerk
z::2_;
2 017

MEMORANDUM
SLOMSKY, J.

JUNE

I

Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint by
Order dated May 12, 2017 (Document No. 10).

He has submitted an

amended complaint (Document No. 11), in which he is raising
claims against Berks County, Pennsylvania, the District Attorney
of Berks County, the West Reading Police Department, a West
Reading Police Department detective and a police officer, Fox
News, Media, Entertainment,

Inc. and a newscaster at Fox News,

the Reading Eagle Newspaper Company and two employees at the
paper, Facebook, Inc. and the CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, and Google,
Inc.
For the following reasons, plaintiff's amended complaint
will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28
U.S.C.

§

1915(e) (2) (B) (ii).

I.
Claims Against Berks County, Pennsylvania, Berks County
District Attorney John Adams, the West Reading Police Department,
Detective Joseph Brown and Police Officer Karie Good.
Municipal liability cannot be imposed absent an allegation
that unlawful actions were taken pursuant to a municipality's
policies, practices, customs, regulations or enactments.
v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
no such allegation in the present complaint.

(1978).

Monell
There is

Therefore, the

claims against Berks County will be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claims against the West Reading Police
Department are dismissed because there is no respondeat superior
liability in

§

1983 cases.

Hampton v. Holmesburg Prison

Officials, 546 F.2d 1077, 1082 (3d Cir. 1976).
Plaintiff's allegation that he was defamed by the Berks
County Court of Common Pleas, District Attorney Adams, the West
Reading Police Department, Detective Brown and Officer Good fails
to state a violation of his constitutional rights, as there is no
constitutional liberty interest in one's reputation.
Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 233-34

(1991).

Siegert v.

Therefore, the defamation

claims against these defendants must be dismissed.
Plaintiff's claim that his conviction and sentence are
In order, "to recover

unconstitutional must also be dismissed.

damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or
imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose
unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a
§

1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has

been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such
determination, or called into question by a federal court's
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus[.]"
U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)

Heck v. Humphrey, 512

(footnote and citation omitted).

Furthermore, his request for immediate release from custody
is a request that may only be brought in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, and not in a
411 U.S.

475 (1973).

§

1983 action.

Preiser v. Rodriguez,

Finally, plaintiff is also raising claims under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985.

However, there are no allegations in plaintiff's

complaint that would allow this Court to find that any of the
defendants' actions were motivated by racial or class-based
animus or that there has been an interference with federal
officials or federal court proceedings which is necessary to
bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.
Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263

See Bray v. Alexandria

(1993); Kush v. Rutledge, 460

U.S. 719, 724-725 (1983); Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88,
102-103 (1971); Brawer v. Horowitz, 535 F.2d 830, 840 (3d Cir.
1976).

II. Plaintiff's claims against Fox News, Media,
Entertainment, Inc, Rebecca Solomon, Reading Eagle Newspaper
Company, Dan Kelly, Steven Henshaw, Facebook, Inc., CEO Mark
Zuckerburg, and Google, Inc.
It appears that plaintiff is attempting to bring state tort
claims against these defendants for defamation.

However, because

all of the claims over which this Court has jurisdiction will be
dismissed, the court will decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff's state law claims pursuant to 28

u.s.c.

§

1367 (c) (3)

dismissed.

Therefore, the claims against them will be