Karriem v. Cellco Partnership Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc.
2:20-cv-00884
| D. Nev. | Jun 29, 2020Background:
- Pro se plaintiff Lamont Garner Karriem sued Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, alleging Verizon cooperated with law enforcement before his October 2018 arrest.
- Causes of action asserted: invasion of privacy, defamation, gross negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- Karriem filed an affidavit of indigence stating no wages or assets and moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
- The Court granted IFP and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and Rule 8/12(b)(6) pleading standards.
- Because it was unclear whether state criminal proceedings were pending, the Court applied Younger abstention and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing Karriem to amend.
- Court gave leave to file an amended complaint by July 29, 2020, allowed adding related defendants from a parallel suit, and directed that no summons issue until the amended complaint is screened.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFP application | Karriem: affidavit shows indigence and inability to pay fees | No opposition on record | IFP granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) |
| Pleading / Abstention | Karriem: Verizon’s cooperation with police caused multiple torts/rights violations | Federal court should not interfere with pending state criminal prosecutions (Younger) | Complaint dismissed without prejudice under Younger; leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must cross from conceivable to plausible to survive dismissal)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility pleading standard)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must generally abstain from interfering with pending state criminal prosecutions)
- Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448 (9th Cir. 1986) (Younger bars federal relief for constitutional claims arising from pending state prosecutions)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (when dismissing under § 1915, leave to amend should be given unless amendment cannot cure defects)