Salaverria v. American Airlines Inc.

Background

Alex Alfonso Salaverria, who was representing himself, sued American Airlines Inc. and Alaska Airlines Group. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying filing fees. Salaverria alleged that federal agents, the Los Angeles Police Department, California law-enforcement agents, and others had surveilled him and obtained or received his private information from the airlines. He also alleged that his mail, confidential documents, and medications for treating HIV had been taken or lost. The complaint described alleged incidents involving airline travel, luggage screening, airport personnel, taxis, and unidentified people whom Salaverria believed were monitoring him.

Salaverria asserted claims under Section 1983, a law allowing damages claims for violations of federal rights by people acting for state government; Bivens, a limited type of claim against federal actors for certain constitutional violations; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO; and state law. He sought money damages. The opinion states that he had filed the same complaint in an earlier related proceeding, which another federal court dismissed as “misdirected” because it was captioned for the Southern District of New York.

Court’s analysis

Because Salaverria was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or presented no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also said it was required to read a self-represented litigant’s complaint liberally and identify the strongest claims the allegations suggested.

The court concluded that the complaint did not provide a plausible legal basis for claims against the airlines. It explained that Section 1983 requires action under color of state law and that a Bivens claim is brought against federal actors. Because American and Alaska were private parties, and because Salaverria had not alleged plausible facts showing that the airlines acted together with state or federal officials, the court held that he failed to state Section 1983 and Bivens claims.

The court also held that Salaverria failed to state a civil RICO claim. It said he had not alleged facts showing that he was injured in his business or property because the defendants agreed to form a RICO enterprise and agreed to commit two qualifying acts as part of a pattern of racketeering. The court further found that his factual allegations were largely incoherent, irrational, or wholly incredible and therefore concluded that the complaint was frivolous because it lacked a basis in law or fact.

Disposition

The court dismissed Salaverria’s complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to grant leave to amend because it determined that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The clerk was directed to terminate any other pending matter in the case. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal.