(PS) Bledsoe v. Zuckerberg ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:23-cv-01071-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 MARK ZUCKERBERG, et al., (Doc. No. 5) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Donnell Bledsoe proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 18 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 6, 2023, plaintiff filed his complaint against defendants Mark Zuckerberg and 21 Facebook. On January 16, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 22 found that plaintiff had failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 5.) In 23 particular, the magistrate judge noted that plaintiff failed to allege: (1) that a right secured by the 24 Constitution or laws of the United States had been violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was 25 committed by a person acting under color of state law. (Id. at 3.) Accordingly, on January 16, 26 2024, findings and recommendations were issued recommending that plaintiff’s complaint be 27 dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. (Id. at 4.) The pending findings 28 and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto 1 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id. at 4.) On January 22, 2024, plaintiff 2 filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (Doc. No. 6.) 3 In his objections, plaintiff suggests that he can cure the deficiencies of his original 4 complaint by alleging that his First Amendment rights were violated when his Facebook posts, 5 many of contained quotes from scripture, were deleted. (Id. at 1–4.) Plaintiff also asserts that 6 “Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook are not immune from violating the plaintiff’s civil right under 7 the First Amendment” and that “the First Amendment provides that Congress make no laws 8 respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.” (Id. at 2.) 9 Plaintiff’s objections only meaningfully address the first of the two deficiencies in his 10 original complaint noted by the magistrate judge. As plaintiff has been informed previously, 11 Facebook and Zuckerberg are not proper defendants in this civil rights action. (Doc. No. 5 at 3; 12 see also Bledsoe v. Zuckerberg, No. 2:22-cv-00394-KJM-KJN (PS), 2022 WL 1271379, at *2 13 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2022) (“Section 1983 is the proper vehicle for First Amendment claims like 14 those asserted here; however, plaintiff does not name any defendant who can be sued under this 15 statute. . . . While plaintiff asserts a violation of his constitutional First Amendment rights, neither 16 defendant Zuckerberg nor Facebook is a state actor.”)) Thus, plaintiff’s objections provide no 17 basis upon which to reject the pending findings and recommendations which recommend 18 dismissal without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. 19 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 20 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 21 findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 22 Accordingly, 23 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 16, 2024 (Doc. No. 5) are 24 adopted in full; 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 2. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a 2 claim; and 3 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > | Dated: _March 22, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 6 DALE A. DROZD 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28