ELANSARI v. JAGEX INC., 2:19-cv-03006

Pro se plaintiff Amro Elansari sued Jagex Inc. (a UK-based game company) and three Chinese companies after being "muted" (barred from in-game communication) and having an appeal denied.
Complaint asserted violations of due process, free speech, and "human rights."
Plaintiff named additional defendants (Shanghai Hongtou Network Technology Co., Shanghai Fukong, Interactive Entertainment Co.) but made no substantive allegations about their conduct.
Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the Court granted IFP status.
The Court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standards and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Dismissal: with prejudice as to any federal constitutional claim (amendment futile) but without prejudice to pursuing state-law claims in an appropriate forum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a private online game operator violated First Amendment free speech rights	Elansari: Jagex muted him, denying his free speech rights	Defendants: Private actors not subject to the First Amendment	Court: Dismissed — private companies are not state actors, so First Amendment claim fails
Whether a private online game operator violated Fifth Amendment due process rights	Elansari: Denial of appeal deprived him of due process	Defendants: Due Process Clause restricts only government action	Court: Dismissed — Fifth Amendment does not apply to private parties
Whether allegations sufficed to plead state action (i.e., concerted action with government)	Elansari: did not allege facts showing state involvement	Defendants: no state-action allegations	Court: Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege concerted action or state involvement
Whether complaint should be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim	Elansari: sought leave to proceed IFP and to proceed on asserted constitutional claims	Court/Defendants: claims are legally implausible as pled	Court: Granted IFP; dismissed federal claims for failure to state a claim; allowed possibility of state-law claims elsewhere

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 1999) (§ 1915 dismissal standard parallels Rule 12(b)(6))
Higgs v. Attorney General, 655 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2011) (pro se complaints construed liberally)
Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1995) (Rule 8 requires notice-pleading sufficient to inform defendants)
Pub. Util. Comm. of D.C. v. Pollack, 343 U.S. 451 (1952) (constitutional provisions restricting government do not apply to private parties)
Green v. America Online, 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003) (private, for-profit companies not subject to constitutional free speech guarantees)
Howard v. America Online, 208 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2000) (same principle regarding private online intermediaries)
Noah v. AOL Time Warner, Inc., 261 F. Supp. 2d 532 (E.D. Va. 2003) (private online service not bound by First Amendment)