Kettenburg v. Google, Inc.

Background

Robert Christopher Kettenburg, who represented himself, applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleged that he watched a YouTube video claiming that wearing a black arm band with a 9-volt battery for 72 hours could cure AIDS and all blood-borne diseases. He then posted the video on his own website and referred to a purported $20 cure. He alleged that he had not made money from the cure and questioned how much money had been given to the medical establishment for an AIDS cure.

Kettenburg accused Google, Inc. of violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242, 244, 247, 373, 1113, 1117, 2236, and 2340A. He requested an order requiring Google to pay him and every American veteran whose civil rights Google had violated one million dollars. The complaint also included filings identified as a motion for discovery and a motion for waiver of service.

Fee-Waiver Application

The court granted Kettenburg’s application to proceed without paying the required filing fees. It found that he met the financial eligibility requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Screening and Legal Standard

Because the application was granted, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). This screening process requires dismissal of an action filed without payment of fees if the complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court explained that the failure-to-state-a-claim standard is the same standard used for a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It also noted that self-represented pleadings must be read liberally.

Reason for Dismissal

The court held that each statute Kettenburg cited imposes criminal liability. Criminal statutes cannot ordinarily support a civil lawsuit unless Congress expressly or implicitly created a private right of action. After reviewing the statutes, the court concluded that none creates such a right. The court therefore dismissed Kettenburg’s claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. Kettenburg was directed to file an amended complaint by October 16, 2024, only if he could explain in good faith what happened to him, how he was harmed, why the events violated the law, and why he could pursue a civil action for the alleged violation. If he did not meet the deadline, the court stated that the clerk would be directed to reassign the action to a district judge with a recommendation that the action be dismissed.