Berry v. Meta Platforms

Background

Quincy K. Berry, representing himself, sued Meta Platforms, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, and Instagram. He applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously denied his first application without prejudice because Berry reported no income or assets but did not provide enough information to show that those answers were credible. The court directed him to submit the district’s standard application and an additional declaration explaining how he met his basic needs.

Berry did not respond by the earlier deadline. The court therefore denied the first application and allowed him to submit a new application or pay the filing fee. Berry filed a renewed application using the correct form. He again reported no income or assets, but listed $100 in monthly expenses for food and clothing. He did not provide the requested explanation of how he paid those expenses. Instead, he attached a Pennsylvania criminal docket involving charges against him, which did not address the financial-information problem.

Problems identified in the complaint

The court stated that Berry’s complaint contained only a partial, conclusory assertion that the defendants acted under the color of law and involved payments connected to official acts. The court said these assertions were, at most, bare recitations of legal requirements rather than specific facts showing what the defendants did and how their conduct harmed Berry.

The court said that if Berry wanted to pursue claims based on the defendants’ alleged status as “public officials,” he would need to provide facts showing that Zuckerberg and the corporate defendants acted as government officials or entities. The court also said Berry had not adequately explained why the case fell within federal subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal authority to hear the dispute.

Berry checked a box asserting federal-question jurisdiction and referred to the Fourteenth Amendment, due process, and breach of contract, but his statement was incomplete. The court explained that merely labeling a breach-of-contract claim as a constitutional violation does not establish federal-question jurisdiction. It also stated that a due-process claim would likely require facts showing that the defendants were government officials or entities, or acted under the color of law.

Order

The court ordered Berry to show cause—meaning to explain why the court should not take the stated action—why his renewed application to proceed without paying the filing fee should not be denied and why the case should not be dismissed. The possible grounds listed were failure to pay the filing fee, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and frivolousness.

The order did not itself dismiss the case or finally deny the renewed application. It gave Berry until July 3, 2025, either to pay the filing fee or respond about why he qualified to proceed without paying and how he paid his basic expenses. By the same deadline, he had to file either an amended complaint addressing the identified defects or a response explaining why the current complaint should proceed. The court stated that an amended complaint would replace the original complaint and would need to include all claims, allegations, and defendants Berry intended to pursue. Failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge A J. Cisneros.