Stearns v. Google, Incorporated

Background

Jerry Stearns, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a complaint against Google Incorporated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that a Google search on May 11, 2019, unexpectedly returned images of child pornography. According to the complaint, those images became the basis for federal charges, and Stearns was later convicted and sentenced to 11 years.

Stearns alleged that Google created thumbnail images of third-party content, stored those images, and sent them to users’ computers as image-search results. He also alleged that Google used a stringent filtering process to remove child pornography even though it was not legally required to do so. He claimed that Google negligently or grossly negligently failed to protect him from receiving the third-party images. He sought damages under the Communications Decency Act, federal child-pornography statutes, and California negligence law. He asserted both federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Screening standard

Because Stearns was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That law requires dismissal if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief.

The court explained that a complaint must give a short and clear statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The facts must make the claim plausible and must show how each defendant personally participated in the alleged violation. The court also noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must contain enough factual detail to support a plausible claim.

Court’s analysis

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that a constitutional or federal statutory right was violated and that the violation was committed by someone acting under state authority. The court held that Stearns did not state a § 1983 claim because Google was not acting under color of state law.

The court also held that there is no private right to sue under the Communications Decency Act or the federal criminal statutes identified in the complaint. As a result, Stearns did not establish a federal-question claim under those laws.

Under California law, negligence requires a failure to use the level of care that a reasonable person would use in similar circumstances to protect others from harm. The court held that Stearns did not allege that Google failed to use reasonable care. Instead, the allegations suggested that Google was taking more care than the law required.

The court further stated that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally protects search engines and other internet services from liability for decisions about moderating content created by others. It concluded that section 230 would preclude a state-law claim like Stearns’s even if he had adequately pleaded negligence.

Disposition

The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. It directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, enter judgment, and close the file. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.