221 F. Supp. 3d 1237
W.D. Wash.2016Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Martin Ralls, proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, and the United States alleging Facebook censored his content, causing lost book sales and emotional harm; he asserted breach of Facebook’s Terms of Use, a Title II claim, a First Amendment claim against the Government, and a Ninth Amendment claim.
- The court previously screened and dismissed Ralls’s original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and Ralls filed a first (and later an identical second) amended complaint adding the Government.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim; Ralls did not oppose the motion or supply evidence supporting jurisdiction.
- The court analyzed both general and specific personal jurisdiction under federal due process principles and Washington’s co-extensive long-arm statute, concluding Ralls made no prima facie showing of contacts with Washington for either Facebook or Zuckerberg.
- The court dismissed Ralls’s claims against Facebook and Zuckerberg without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction; it dismissed the Ninth Amendment claim against the Government with prejudice and the First Amendment claim against the Government without prejudice for failure to plead a federal actor or facts supporting a Bivens claim.
- The court granted leave to amend only as to (1) facts showing personal jurisdiction over Defendants and (2) factual allegations supporting a First Amendment claim against the Government; failure to amend within 20 days could result in dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Facebook and Zuckerberg | Ralls alleges Facebook censored him via its platform (implying suit may lie in WA) | Facebook/Zuckerberg: no relevant contacts with Washington; Facebook domiciled in Delaware and principal place in California; forum-selection in SRR; no allegations against Zuckerberg personally | Court: Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction (no prima facie facts showing general or specific jurisdiction); did not reach merits |
| General jurisdiction over Facebook | Ralls did not plead domicile facts to establish Facebook "at home" in WA | Facebook: incorporated in Delaware, principal place in CA; not an exceptional case | Court: No general jurisdiction; Facebook not "at home" in WA |
| First Amendment claim against the U.S. Government | Ralls alleges the Government is instructing Facebook to violate his rights and may be tracking him as a terrorist | Government (implicitly): sovereign immunity; no waiver; Bivens requires a federal actor and adequate facts | Court: Dismissed First Amendment claim without prejudice for lack of jurisdictional allegations and insufficient factual pleading to state a Bivens claim |
| Ninth Amendment claim against the Government | Ralls asserts the Government passed unconstitutional laws and failed to protect him | Government: Ninth Amendment does not independently create a civil cause of action | Court: Dismissed Ninth Amendment claim with prejudice as legally noncognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction and prima facie showing standard)
- Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir.) (prima facie personal jurisdiction standard for written-materials motions)
- Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff cannot rely on bare allegations for personal jurisdiction)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (U.S.) (general jurisdiction requires defendant to be "at home" in forum)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S.) (minimum contacts due process framework)
- Picot v. Weston, 780 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir.) (analysis of due process limits on jurisdiction)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S.) (paradigm forum for individual general jurisdiction is domicile)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S.) (plausibility pleading standard requiring factual content to allow reasonable inference of liability)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (U.S.) (permits damages actions against federal actors in limited circumstances)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir.) (§1915(e) screening applies to all IFP plaintiffs)