Griffin v. Sandberg
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-04047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Griffin v. Sandberg, Judge Corley dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and denied class certification.
The order directly affected Chicory Griffin’s individual complaint and class-certification motion. It also addressed Antoinette Griffin’s inclusion as a plaintiff and stated that claims concerning the same data-privacy subject matter had to proceed through the existing class action or its settlement process.
What happened
In Griffin v. Sandberg, Chicory Griffin, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sheryl Sandberg, Cambridge Analytica, Meta Platforms, Inc., and unidentified defendants over alleged misuse and disclosure of data. He sought nearly five million dollars and referred to Antoinette Griffin as a second plaintiff.
The court said Griffin’s allegations and requested relief duplicated an existing class action involving data privacy. Because he did not say he had opted out of that case’s settlement, the court said he must submit damages claims to the settlement administrator and pursue other equitable relief through the class action’s representatives or lawyers. The court also said Griffin could not represent Antoinette Griffin, who had not signed the filings.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, allowing Griffin to allege only whether, and how and when, he opted out of the settlement; the court denied his motion for class certification. The court also ordered that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not timely amend.
The detailed version
- Griffin v. Sandberg · No. 3:23-cv-04047
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Dec. 19, 2023
Background
Chicory Griffin, an inmate in Missouri proceeding without a lawyer, sued Sheryl Sandberg, Cambridge Analytica, Meta Platforms, Inc., and unidentified defendants. He alleged that the defendants disclosed or misused his data and that this led to cyberstalking, profiling, and exposure to biometric technology. He alleged mental, emotional, and social damages and sought nearly five million dollars. The complaint also named Antoinette Griffin as a second plaintiff, but she did not sign the complaint or any other filing.
Court’s analysis
The court conducted the required preliminary screening of a prisoner’s complaint. It concluded that the allegations and requested relief duplicated those in an existing class action concerning data privacy. The court said Griffin was a member of that class and of its Missouri subclass. Because the class action had settled and Griffin did not allege that he had opted out, the court ruled that he must submit any damages claim to the settlement administrator. For other equitable relief—meaning non-money remedies such as an order requiring conduct to change—the court said he must proceed through the class representatives and class lawyers or seek to intervene in the class action, rather than filing a separate individual case.
The court noted that Griffin could amend if he had in fact opted out of the settlement. Any amended complaint had to allege whether he opted out and how and when he did so. The court did not give permission to add new claims or defendants. The court also explained that Griffin could not represent Antoinette Griffin because an unrepresented litigant may represent only himself, and that Antoinette had not signed the filings as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Class certification and disposition
The court denied Griffin’s motion for class certification. It was unclear what class he sought to certify, and the court stated that a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer could not adequately represent a class. The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. If Griffin did not file a qualifying amended complaint by January 18, 2024, the case would be dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to send Griffin a form for requesting copies of court documents.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.