Mutton v. Google LLC

Background

William Aaron Mutton, an inmate at Two Rivers Correctional Institution, filed this action without a lawyer. The court had separately allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee. He named Google LLC, Google Chief Operating Officer Ana Corrales, and Jane/John Does 1–5 as defendants.

Mutton alleged that, on May 8, 2015, a Google employee acting under policies associated with Google’s upper management flagged an email image as child pornography, shut down his email account, and reported the account and Mutton to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. He alleged that the image was non-pornographic artwork. He further alleged that newly discovered evidence showed the employee had negligently or maliciously flagged the image and had not verified its contents, and that Google lacked policies to prevent a false report.

The complaint asserted that these events violated Mutton’s First Amendment freedom-of-expression rights and amounted to negligence under Oregon law in connection with reporting under 32 U.S.C. § 20341 and 28 C.F.R. § 81.12. He sought declarations concerning the email shutdown, his character, alleged defamation or written libel, and the effect of defendants’ actions on his prosecution and imprisonment. He alleged federal-question and diversity jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the court must dismiss an action filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if it fails to state a claim for relief. The court applied the same standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), while construing a self-represented plaintiff’s allegations liberally.

The court held that the defendants were private actors. The First Amendment restricts government action, and the court concluded that it does not prohibit private actors from abridging speech. It therefore dismissed Mutton’s First Amendment claim with prejudice.

The court identified the Oregon negligence claim as the only remaining claim. It did not screen that claim at that time and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a state-law claim related to federal claims, because it had dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and stated that the dismissal was with prejudice because amendment would be futile. Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered the clerk to terminate all pending motions, issue judgment, and close the file.