Craft v. Musk

Background

The case was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California. The earlier court had granted Craft permission to proceed without paying filing fees but had conducted only a limited review concerning venue. The California court therefore reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires screening of complaints filed by people permitted to proceed without paying filing fees.

Craft alleged that Twitter, Inc. and its chief executive officer, Elon Musk, violated his First Amendment rights by blocking his Twitter account twice, for seven days each time, in February and March 2023. He alleged that he had not threatened anyone or called for mass destruction, but was trying to draw attention to what he viewed as harmful actions by Musk, various organizations, social media, news organizations, and the government. He sought $5 billion in damages and asked the court to seize all of Musk’s and Twitter’s assets until the case was resolved.

Analysis

The court concluded that Craft had failed to state a viable claim. Under the First Amendment, the Free Speech Clause prohibits governmental abridgment of speech, not speech restrictions imposed by private parties. The court treated Twitter as a private company and found that temporarily blocking Craft’s account was not government action.

The court considered the recognized circumstances in which a private party’s conduct may be treated as government action. It found no allegations that Twitter or Musk exercised powers traditionally reserved exclusively to the government, jointly participated with the government, acted because of government coercion or significant encouragement, or had a sufficiently close connection with the government concerning the challenged conduct.

The court also ruled that, even if Craft had adequately alleged government action, his claims would fail under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That statute can protect an online service provider from liability for voluntarily restricting access to material it considers objectionable when it acts in good faith. The court found that Craft had not alleged facts supporting a plausible inference that Twitter acted in bad faith when it blocked his account.

Order

The court did not dismiss the case in this order. Instead, it ordered Craft to show cause by May 9, 2023, why the complaint should not be dismissed. Craft could either file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies or file a response arguing that the current complaint was sufficient. The court stated that if he did not respond by the deadline, the case would be reassigned to a district judge with a recommendation that it be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any amended complaint had to include the case caption and number, the words “FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,” all facts and claims Craft wished to present, and all defendants he wished to sue.