Gremmels v. Apple Inc.

Background

Christian Gremmels, proceeding without a lawyer, applied to proceed without paying court fees. He sued Apple, Verizon, and Google, alleging a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 1004, a provision of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The opinion states that Gremmels alleged mental-health problems beginning in 2015, made more than 60,000 voicemail calls to his brother through Apple and Verizon, and sent more than 15,000 emails. He suspected that his brother received false information or that his brother's responses were intercepted or stolen.

Court's analysis

The court granted Gremmels's application to proceed without paying court fees. Because the application was granted, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to determine whether it stated a claim for which relief could be granted.

The court explained that CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to maintain networks that can be accessed by authorized law-enforcement officials for wiretapping. It held that CALEA does not create a private right of action allowing individuals to sue their telecommunications providers. The court also found that the complaint did not allege facts showing that Apple or Verizon permitted interception of communications without a court order or other lawful authorization. The theory that Gremmels's brother's responses may have been stolen or intercepted was not enough to make the claim plausible. In addition, the complaint did not allege that Google was involved.

Order and effect

The court ordered Gremmels to show cause—meaning to explain—why his complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. It allowed him to file an amended complaint by June 4, 2025. The amended complaint had to identify the law allegedly violated, explain why Gremmels could sue the defendants, and provide enough facts to support the claim, including facts showing that his calls, voicemails, or emails were intercepted. The amended complaint would replace the existing complaint and had to include all claims and facts without referring back to the current complaint.

The opinion states that if Gremmels did not correct the identified defects, the undersigned magistrate judge would recommend either denying his application to proceed without paying court fees or dismissing the complaint. If he did not respond, the magistrate judge could recommend dismissal for failure to prosecute. The opinion does not state that the complaint was dismissed in this order. The judge's name is not clearly readable in the provided signature.