Lettieri v. Facebook ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID C. LETTIERI, Case No. 23-cv-06554-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 13 10 FACEBOOK, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff has filed this pro se action, which the Court dismissed on June 17, 2024, for 14 failure to state a cognizable claim for relief. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request 15 for reconsideration of the dismissal. Dkt. No. 13. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 16 DENIES the request for reconsideration. 17 DISCUSSION 18 I. Background 19 In this action, Plaintiff sues the company Facebook, Facebook employee Tyler Harmon, 20 and Western District of New York Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Bonnano and Maeve 21 Eileen Huggins. The complaint makes the following allegations. In May 2023, Plaintiff looked at 22 the Facebook chat that Randall Garver claimed was for discovery.1 Plaintiff demanded to see the 23 other two to three week chats that the victim had claimed to have had with Plaintiff. Mr. Garver 24 and defendant Bonanno stated that they would get back to Plaintiff, but, as of October 10, 2023, 25 had not gotten back to Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that defendant Harmon lied and committed 26 perjury, and that the chat violated Fed. R. Evid. 901, which governs the authentication or 27 1 identification of evidence. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 2 The Court dismissed the action with prejudice for failure to state a cognizable claim for 3 relief for the following reasons: The Court DISMISSES this complaint for failure to state a cognizable claim for 4 relief. There is no private right of action under Fed. R. Evid. 901. See, e.g., In re Baldwin- United Corp. (Single Premium Deferred Annuities Ins. Litig.), 770 F.2d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 5 1985) (federal rules of civil procedures are “rule[s] of procedure and create[] no substantive rights or remedies enforceable in federal court.”). In addition, Plaintiff appears 6 to be challenging an evidentiary ruling in an ongoing New York federal court criminal proceeding. This Court cannot review the decisions of other district courts. See Mullis v. 7 U.S. Bankruptcy Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th Cir. 1987) (federal district court also lacks authority to issue writ of mandamus to another district court). Finally, Plaintiff appears to 8 be bringing a Bivens action against defendants Bonanno and Huggins. However, the Supreme Court has only recognized a viable Bivens remedy in three contexts: (1) violation 9 of the prohibition against unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth Amendment; (2) gender discrimination pursuant to the equal protection component of the due process 10 clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) deliberate indifference to an inmate's health care needs under the Eighth Amendment. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980) (Eighth 11 Amendment); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979) (Fifth Amendment); Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (Fourth 12 Amendment). Expanding the Bivens remedy to new contexts – such as the prosecutorial misconduct alleged here – is a “disfavored judicial activity,” and courts “consistently 13 refuse[ ] to extend Bivens to any new context or new category of defendants.” Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S. Ct. 1843, 1857 (2017). The dismissal of this action is with prejudice 14 because amendment would be futile. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music Pub., 512 F.3d 522, 532 (9th Cir. 2008) (futility of amendment is basis for denial of leave to amend). 15 Dkt. No. 10 at 2-3. 16 II. Motion for Reconsideration 17 A. Legal Standard 18 Where the court’s ruling has resulted in a final judgment or order (e.g., after dismissal or 19 summary judgment motion), a motion for reconsideration may be based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 20 (motion to alter or amend judgment). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). “Reconsideration is appropriate if 21 the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the 22 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” 23 School Dist. No. 1K, Multnomah Cty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). 24 B. Analysis 25 Plaintiff appears to argue that the Court committed clear error in dismissing this action for 26 failure to state a cognizable claim. He argues that Powell v. United States, C No. 19 Civ. 11351 27 (AKH), holds that there is a Bivens action for fabrication of evidence; and that, to the extent that 1 Plaintiff failed to state under a claim, the Court should have granted him leave to amend because 2 Defendants’ actions also violated 18 U.S.C. § 2701; 47 U.S.C. 8§ 206, 207, 220; and the Due 3 Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 4 The Court’s dismissal of this action for failure to state a claim was not clearly erroneous. 5 || The complaint did not allege fabrication of evidence. Rather, it alleges that defendant Harmon 6 || committed perjury and defendant Bonnano did not get back to Plaintiff about giving Plaintiff 7 access to the other two to three week chats that the victim had claimed to have had with Plaintiff. 8 To the extent that Plaintiff is arguing that Defendants fabricated evidence against him, this is a 9 new claim that must be brought in a separate action. Nor was the dismissal without leave to 10 || amend erroneous. Plaintiff's claims that defendant Harmon committed perjury and that defendant 11 Bonnano has not followed up regarding giving Plaintiff access to certain evidence do not state 12 violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2701; 47 U.S.C. 8§ 206, 207, 220; or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 13 Amendment. The statutes referenced do not apply to claims of perjury or access to evidence. Any 14 || due process claim is barred by the Heck doctrine, which holds that in order to recover damages for 3 15 harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a a 16 || plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged 3 17 by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or 18 || called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey, 19 512 U.S. 477 (1994); Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (rationale of Heck applies to 20 Bivens actions). 21 CONCLUSION 22 The Court DENIES the request for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 13. This case remains 23 closed. 24 This action terminates Dkt. No. 13. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 8/1/2024 Alaupred SbL □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge