Court Opinion

ID: 9400839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 17:01:01.399492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:48.421616
License: Public Domain

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                       No. 23-1062
                                       __________

                                  COURTNEY GREEN,
                                             Appellant

                                             v.

                  LG ELECTRONICS USA; LG ELECTRONICS INC
                     ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the District of New Jersey
                         (D.C. Civil Action No. 2-22-cv-06057)
                      District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
                      ____________________________________

                    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
                                    June 8, 2023
            Before: HARDIMAN, PORTER, and FREEMAN, Circuit Judges

                               (Opinion filed June 9, 2023)

                                      ___________

                                       OPINION*
                                      ___________

PER CURIAM

       Courtney Green, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District

Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his amended complaint and denying his

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
motion for reconsideration. We will affirm; however, our rationale differs from that of

the District Court. See TD Bank N.A. v. Hill, 928 F.3d 259, 270 (3d Cir. 2019) (noting

that we may affirm on any basis supported by the record).

       Green filed a complaint against LG Electronics USA and LG Electronics Inc. He

alleged that the companies enabled employees of the entertainment and media industry to

monitor him and converse with him through components in his television. He also

averred that the companies were able to “collect viewing data and manipulate and control

[his] viewing capabilities.” ECF No. 1 at 4. Green sought money damages and other

relief. Before service of process, the District Court dismissed the complaint under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. The District Court allowed Green to amend his complaint.

       Green filed an amended complaint. In a separate statement of facts, he set forth

instances when television personalities were allegedly targeting and monitoring him.

Green alleged that commentators on several shows said that “there was nowhere that I

could hide.” ECF No. 10 at 1. In another example, he stated that a host on Fox Sports

said, “Hey guys, he thinks we’re his friends.” Id. Green also averred that a television

cast acknowledged that they could see him and made comments about him. In addition,

Green alleged that he was unable to access certain programs on a streaming service,

which instead offered him customized program choices. Green claimed that the

companies engaged in racketeering, violated privacy laws, and defamed him.

       The District Court dismissed Green’s amended complaint with prejudice pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Green filed a motion for reconsideration
                                             2
stating again that television personalities were monitoring him. The District Court denied

relief because Green had not identified an intervening change in law, new evidence, or a

legal or factual error in its decision. This timely appeal followed.

       We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our standard of review of the

District Court’s dismissal of the amended complaint is plenary. Byers v. Intuit, Inc., 600

F.3d 286, 291 (3d Cir. 2010). We review the denial of a motion for reconsideration for

abuse of discretion. Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 994 F.3d 182, 186 (3d

Cir. 2021).

       Green reiterates on appeal that he has been surveilled and that viewing data was

tracked when he watched a LG Electronics brand television. He sets forth additional

instances when television personalities allegedly spoke or referred to him on their shows.

We agree with the District Court’s dismissal of Green’s amended complaint. However,

we affirm on the ground that dismissal was warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

       The District Court granted Green’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in an

order entered on December 15, 2015. Green’s amended complaint was thus subject to the

screening provisions of § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), the court shall

dismiss an action that is “frivolous.” A claim is factually frivolous when the facts alleged

“rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible.” See Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) (addressing former § 1915(d)). That is the case here. Green’s

allegations that television personalities are monitoring him or talking about him on their

shows are fanciful. Dismissal of these claims was proper under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).

       To the extent Green’s allegations regarding the tracking of viewing data are not
                                             3
frivolous, we agree with the District Court insofar as it held that he failed to allege

sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556

U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The District Court, however, should have dismissed these claims

pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits the dismissal of an in forma pauperis

complaint at any time for failure to state a claim. District courts generally should not

dismiss a complaint sua sponte pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) before service of process. See

Oatess v. Sobolevitch, 914 F.2d 428, 430-31 (3d Cir. 1990).1 To the extent Green

appeals the District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration, which reiterated

allegations in his amended complaint, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in

denying relief.

       Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

1
 The standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) though is the
same. See Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999) (applying Rule
12(b)(6) standard in appeal of dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)).
                                            4