Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01299/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01299-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Earthlink
Defendant
FCC
Defendant
Marie Patton
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIE PATTON, No. CIV.S-05-1299 MCE DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER AND

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

COMMISSION,

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff, proceeding in this action pro se, has requested

leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit making the showing

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, the request to

proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The determination that plaintiff may proceed in forma

pauperis does not complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss the case at any

Case 2:05-cv-01299-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

time if it determines the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the

action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which

relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune

defendant. Also, the court has an independent obligation to address

sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Allstate Ins.

Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004). "Whenever it

appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court

lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the

action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In the instant case, the

undersigned will recommend that this action be dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, in relevant part:

[D]ue to the failure of the [Federal

Communications Commission] to enforce its own

regulations, television and radio entities are

acting outside the confines of the law. Some are

wiretapping phones in private homes .... [T]hey

enter private residences and put hidden taping

devices in private homes and steal U.S. Postal

Mail under the guise of doing some type of

“prank” or “show” without a contract from the

person. The above in total is in violation of

the people’s 4th Amendment rights.

(Compl. at 1.) The complaint goes on to allege that plaintiff in

particular is “currently having large amounts of postal mail stolen,

my house broken into, my phone calls intercepted, and my e-mails

stolen, and intercepted, by entities that are supposed to be

affiliated with radio and television.” (Compl. at 2.) As to

defendant EarthLink, Inc. (“EarthLink”), the only remaining defendant

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01299-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 5
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

1 The two named defendants are EarthLink and the FCC. 

Plaintiff and the FCC stipulated to the dismissal of the FCC on

October 14, 2005.

3

in this action,1 the complaint alleges that EarthLink has violated

plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights by allowing the theft of

plaintiff’s e-mail and failing to involve the Federal Bureau of

Investigation in the matter as plaintiff has requested. The

complaint prays for $100,000 in damages and that defendants be “fined

and evaluated for mental stability.” (Compl. at 3.)

The undersigned has liberally construed plaintiff’s pro se

complaint. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir.

1985)(en banc). However, despite that liberal construction, the

undersigned finds that plaintiff’s complaint has no arguable basis

either in law or in fact, is wholly insubstantial, implausible and

therefore subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 543 (1974)

(stating that a claim may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where

it is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions

of this Court or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to

involve a federal controversy within the jurisdiction of the District

Court”); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946) (recognizing that a

claim is subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction where it is

“wholly insubstantial and frivolous” and “so patently without

merit”); see also Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227 (9th Cir.

1984)(“A paid complaint that is ‘obviously frivolous’ does not confer

federal subject matter jurisdiction and may be dismissed sua sponte

Case 2:05-cv-01299-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 3 of 5
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

2 Plaintiff’s complaint is very similar to an earlier complaint

submitted by plaintiff which ultimately was also dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction. See Patton v. Federal Communications

Commission, No. CIV.S-03-0812 LKK DAD PS.

4

before service of process.”). Therefore, the undersigned will

recommend that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.2

The undersigned will further recommend that the dismissal

be without leave to amend. The nature of the allegations of

plaintiff’s complaint demonstrate that leave to amend would be

futile. Schmier v. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit, 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). Further, even if the

court were to have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, it 

would subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Private

defendants such as EarthLink are not subject to liability for an

alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment. An action may be brought

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress a constitutional violation under

color of state law. “Private parties act under color of state law if

they willfully participate in joint action with state officials to

deprive others of constitutional rights.” United Steelworkers of Am.

v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1540 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc). 

However, no such willful participation in joint action with state

officials is alleged in the complaint.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request

to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01299-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s complaint be

dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty (20) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may

file written objections with the court. Such a document should be

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 8, 2005.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\patton1299.f&r

Case 2:05-cv-01299-MCE -DAD Document 5 Filed 11/09/05 Page 5 of 5