Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06295/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06295-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06295-JD 

SECOND ORDER RE IFP 

APPLICATION AND 

TRO/INJUNCTION MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 11, 15, 16

The Court dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend, and denied the TRO 

application, in the course of reviewing plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Dkt. No. 9. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which again tries to state a 

First Amendment claim against defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for blocking posts on 

Facebook that violated its hate speech standards, and related conduct. Dkt. No. 10.

The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice with respect to the First Amendment 

and Section 1983 claim. The gravamen of the claim is that Facebook is a private entity that 

operates a public forum for speech and consequently is bound by the First Amendment’s speech 

guarantees. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 19-20. The problem that plaintiff cannot overcome is that the First 

Amendment applies only to governmental abridgements of speech, and not to alleged 

abridgements by private companies like Facebook. Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. 

Halleck, ___ S.Ct. ___, No. 17-1702, 2019 WL 2493920, at *4 (June 17, 2019). Plaintiff’s effort 

to find a First Amendment hook in a state actor theory is not tenable. A private entity that 

provides a forum for speech does not engage in an activity that the government has traditionally 

and exclusively performed, and so does not qualify as a state actor subject to First Amendment 

constraints. Id. at *5-6. “The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech 

and speakers in the forum.” Id. at *5. 

Case 3:18-cv-06295-JD Document 19 Filed 06/18/19 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

Because no further amendment could cure this problem, the amended complaint is 

dismissed with prejudice with respect to the federal claim. Because only federal question 

jurisdiction is alleged, Dkt. No. 10 ¶ 3, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over the alleged state negligence claim, and so dismisses it without prejudice. 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(c)(3). All other pending motions are terminated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06295-JD Document 19 Filed 06/18/19 Page 2 of 2