Jayne v. Google Internet Search Engine Founders

Filing 21

MANDATE of USCA as to 11 Notice of Appeal, filed by Dylan Stephen Jayne (Attachments: # 1 Letter to the Clerk in reference to mandate, # 2 Court of Appeals Opinion)(Hernandez, Carmen)

Jayne v. Google Internet Search Engine Founders

Doc. 21 Att. 2

NOT PRECEDENTIAL U N IT E D STATES COURT OF APPEALS F O R THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ N o . 07-4083 ___________ DYLAN STEPHEN JAYNE, Appellant v. G O O G L E INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE FOUNDERS ____________________________________ O n Appeal from the United States District Court f o r the Middle District of Pennsylvania (D .C . Civil Action No. 07-cv-01677) D is tric t Judge: Honorable James M. Munley ____________________________________ S u b m itte d Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) F e b ru a ry 5, 2008 B e f o re : AMBRO, FUENTES and FISHER, Circuit Judges (O p in io n filed February 7, 2008) ___________ O P IN IO N ___________ P E R CURIAM T h is appeal arises from the order of the United States District Court for the Middle D is tric t of Pennsylvania dismissing Dylan Stephen Jayne's complaint pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2)(B). We will affirm.

Dockets.Justia.com

In September 2007, Jayne filed an action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the f o u n d e rs of the Google internet search engine, alleging that his social security number w h e n turned upside down is a scrambled code that spells the name "Google." The D is tric t Court reviewed the lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Jayne filed a timely appeal. We have jurisdiction p u rs u a n t to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of the District Court's sua s p o n te dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Allah v. Seiverling, 229 F.3d 220, 223 (3d Cir. 2000). T o prevail on his § 1983 claim, Jayne must demonstrate that the named defendants a c te d under color of state law and deprived him of rights secured by the Constitution or f e d era l law. See Sameric Corp. of Del., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 590 (3 d Cir. 1998). It is clear that neither of these criteria is satisfied here. As explained by th e District Court, Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne's allegation c o n c ern in g his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the C o n stitu tio n or federal law. We also agree that any amendment of the complaint would b e futile. See Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 2002). F o r these reasons, we will affirm the District Court's order.

2