The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Munley
Before the court for disposition is plaintiff's complaint, which was filed with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reason, we will dismiss the case sua sponte.
On September 18, 2007, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit. Plaintiff asserts a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (hereinafter "section 1983") against the founders of the Google internet search engine. The basis of plaintiff's claim is that his social security number when "turned upside down" is a scrambled code that spells the name Google. He seeks five billion dollars in damages from Google.*fn1
We will grant plaintiff's petition to proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of filing the complaint only, and dismiss the complaint.
The law provides that Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that - (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or
(B) the action or appeal -(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).*fn2 The instant case will be dismissed for failing to state a claim on which relief can be granted. As set forth above plaintiff asserts a section 1983 action against the defendant.
In pertinent part, section 1983 provides as follows:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity or other proper proceeding for redress . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Thus, to establish a claim under section 1983, two criteria must be met. First, the conduct complained of must have been committed by a person acting under color of state law. Second, the conduct must deprive the complainant of rights secured under the Constitution or federal law. Sameric Corp. of Delaware, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 142 F.3d 582, 590 (3d Cir. 1998).
In the instant case, neither of these criteria is met. The defendant is not a state actor, but rather, a private company, and the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged a violation of the Constitution or federal law. He merely asserts that his social security number when turned upside down spells out the word Google in code. There is no valid assertion that this is somehow a violation of the law or the Constitution*fn3 or indeed how Google could be ...