Thieriot v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Background

Elisabeth I. Thieriot sued Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Mari Kryder Becker, whom the opinion describes as allegedly a PG&E executive. The suit arose after PG&E ended service to Thieriot’s home because she failed to pay her bills. Thieriot instead sent an IRS form that, according to the opinion, she believed required the federal government to pay her utility bills. She asserted claims under the Constitution, the Uniform Commercial Code, and federal and state statutes.

Magistrate Judge Alex Tse had screened Thieriot’s initial and first amended complaints under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found them frivolous. He later recommended dismissing the second amended complaint. Thieriot objected, and Judge Corley adopted the recommendation.

Rulings on the Federal Claims

The court dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1983 claims with prejudice because neither PG&E nor Becker was a government entity or government actor. The court relied on precedent holding that a private utility is not a state actor when it discontinues service for nonpayment. It concluded that amendment would be futile.

The court also dismissed the Fifth Amendment claim with prejudice because the Fifth Amendment applies against the federal government, and neither defendant was a federal actor. The court dismissed with prejudice claims based on Article I of the Constitution and Public Law 73-10 because those provisions do not create or imply a private right to sue.

The court further dismissed with prejudice claims under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1615, 1662, 1692e, and 1693k, as well as 31 U.S.C. § 3123. It concluded that Thieriot’s theory treated IRS Forms 1099-A and 1099-C as methods of payment, but those forms are reporting forms. The court ruled that the related allegations failed as a matter of law. It also stated that § 3123 concerns how the federal government pays the public debt and had no relation to this case. The court noted that the federal declaratory-judgment statute and the Uniform Commercial Code, standing alone, did not provide a basis for liability.

State Claims and Disposition

Because all federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Thieriot’s remaining state claims. The court therefore dismissed with prejudice all of Thieriot’s federal constitutional and statutory claims and declined jurisdiction over her state-law claims. The order stated that she could refile the state claims in a state-court action.