Karriem v. Cellco Partnership Inc., d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc.
2:20-cv-00884
| D. Nev. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Pro se plaintiff Lamont Garner Karriem filed three consolidated cases arising from his October 2018 arrest, asserting federal and state claims against multiple defendants (private companies, hotel employees, law‑enforcement agencies, judges, and individual officers).
- Karriem's amended complaints were lengthy, repetitive, and failed to tie specific factual allegations to specific defendants, prompting Rule 8 concerns and prior recommendations for dismissal in one case.
- Central federal claims alleged: Fourth Amendment unlawful search/seizure, § 1983 and § 1985 civil‑rights violations, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA); numerous state tort claims were also pleaded.
- The court found many legal defects: private actors are not state actors for § 1983; judicial immunity bars claims against judges; supervisory/respondeat superior allegations were conclusory; several criminal statutes cited do not provide civil causes of action; ECPA claims appeared time‑barred and factually unsupported.
- The court dismissed all three amended complaints without prejudice, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims, and granted leave to file a single consolidated amended complaint limited to 35 pages by August 12, 2021, warning that failure to cure may lead to dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 8 sufficiency | Karriem alleged multiple claims across narratives; contends factual detail exists in long complaints | Defendants argue pleadings are prolix, duplicative, and fail to give fair notice | Dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8; plaintiff may amend with a single ≤35‑page complaint tying facts to defendants |
| § 1983/state‑action | Karriem alleges private defendants (e.g., Verizon, Extended Stay) cooperated with police, causing constitutional deprivations | Defendants are private actors; cooperation does not automatically convert them to state actors | § 1983 claims against private parties dismissed for lack of state action |
| Monell/municipal liability | Karriem alleges county/city policies/practices caused his injury | Defendants argue allegations are conclusory and lack factual showing of unlawful policy or causal link | Municipal claims dismissed for failure to plausibly plead an unlawful policy/custom causally linked to the violation |
| Judicial and absolute immunity | Karriem alleges judges unlawfully detained him and are responsible for wrongdoing | Judges assert absolute judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity | Claims against judges dismissed on grounds of absolute immunity |
| ECPA and federal statutory claims | Karriem alleges unlawful interception/disclosure of electronic communications and cites various criminal statutes | Defendants argue ECPA allegations lack factual detail (contemporaneous interception), may be time‑barred; criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action | ECPA claim dismissed for lack of factual support and apparent statute‑of‑limitations problem; criminal statutory claims dismissed (no civil remedy) |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | Karriem urges adjudication of related state tort claims | Defendants implicitly rely on dismissal of federal claims and lack of diversity | Court declined pendent jurisdiction after federal claims dismissed and dismissed state claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading plausibility and that conclusory allegations are insufficient)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must cross from conceivable to plausible)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires unlawful policy or custom causally linked to injury)
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (judicial immunity for acts within judicial capacity)
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (absolute immunity for certain government officials)
- Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Fourth Amendment privacy principles re: digital data)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868 (definition of interception under ECPA and contemporaneity issue)
- Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., 951 F.3d 1106 (ECPA private‑cause‑of‑action and related privacy analysis)
- McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (Rule 8 dismissal for prolix, confusing pleadings that impede defense)
- Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (complaints that are argumentative, prolix, or immaterial are subject to dismissal)