Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sekiya v. Facebook

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

January 3, 2017

MIKKO T. SEKIYA, Plaintiff,
v.
FACEBOOK et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed December 15, 2016 (“Application”) and on Plaintiff's Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed December 1, 2016 (“Complaint”).[1] For the reasons stated below, the Court will GRANT Plaintiff's Application and DISMISS Plaintiff's Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff shall have 21 days from entry of this Order to file an amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case without prejudice.

         Application to Proceed in forma pauperis

         The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the Court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the person is unable to pay such fees.

When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]

Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962). “The statute [allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis ] was intended for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for costs....” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948). While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute, ” “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Id. at 339.

         The Court will grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiff is unemployed and has no income; (ii) Plaintiff has no cash and no funds in bank accounts; (iii) Plaintiff has no assets; and (iv) Plaintiff has a son and a daughter who rely on him for support. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because he is unemployed, and has no income, cash or assets.

         Dismissal of Proceedings In Forma Pauperis

         The statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis requires federal courts to dismiss an in forma pauperis proceeding that “is frivolous or malicious; ... fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; ... or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). “[P]ro se litigants are to be given reasonable opportunity to remedy the defects in their pleadings.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 n.3 (10th Cir. 1991).

         Plaintiff asserts claims against Facebook and the unknown owner of Facebook based on the following allegations in the Complaint:

Defendant owner of Facebook/unknown . . . is the one who has not shut my Facebook down. . . . .
The case consist[s] of numerous videos being showed on Facebook of my day to day life in the rest room, shower, even having sex etc. Violating my privacy act. . . . .
Three Facebook accounts under my name Mikko Sekiya, that I can not log into and have not been able to for the last two years. . . . .
Three Facebook accounts that have been open for two years with out me ever being able to log on.

Doc. 5 at 2-4. It appears that Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants are liable for the tort of invasion of privacy by publishing private facts. See Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007) (“New Mexico recognizes the tort of invasion of privacy . . . [via] publication of private facts, ” which is “disclosure which would be objectionable to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.