Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03163/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-03163-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

SMILEY J. HARRIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEDIACOM COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03163-NJV

ORDER DISMISSING CASE

On September 22, 2015, the court entered an order dismissing the original complaint due 

to procedural defects in identifying the plaintiffs in the action. (Doc. 14.) Plaintiffs filed their 

amended complaint on September 30, 2015. (Doc. 15.) On October 15, 2015, the court entered an 

order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 

17.) Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on November 4, 2015. (Doc. 18.)

The standards for pleadings set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and federal 

case law were explained at length in the court's order of October 15, 2015, and will not be 

repeated here. The court retains its duty to review Plaintiffs' second amended complaint under 28 

U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2) just as it did Plaintiffs' first amended complaint. After conducting this 

review, the court finds that Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is nearly identical to their first 

amended complaint. The only significant change is the addition of the phrase "as applied to the 

downloading of media" after the acronym "DMCA" in paragraphs 50, 53, 56, 59, 62, 65, 68, 71, 

74, 77, 80, 83, and 86. This minor alteration does not remedy the defect explained in the court's 

order of October 15, 2015:

Case 1:15-cv-03163-NJV Document 19 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Despite the titles of the thirteen causes of action, Plaintiffs provide no facts or other 

explanation that would enlighten Defendants as to how termination of Internet service 

based on multiple violations of copyright law would constitution discrimination or would 

entitle Plaintiffs to relief under any of the many statutory or Constitutional provisions cited 

by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs thus do not give Defendants the required fair notice of the grounds 

on which their claim of discrimination rest.

(Doc. 17, 3:16-21.)

Having granted Plaintiffs two opportunities to amend their complaint to comply with 

federal pleading standards, the court finds that granting further opportunities to amend would be 

futile. Accordingly, this action is HEREBY DISMISSED for failure to state a claim on which 

relief can be granted. All outstanding motions are DENIED and the Clerk is directed to close this 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015

______________________________________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-03163-NJV Document 19 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 2