Green v. Paramount

Background

Courtney Green, who was representing herself, filed the action after the court allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees. She invoked diversity jurisdiction and sued Paramount. She sought $175,000,000 in damages, subpoenas, restrictions on Paramount’s alleged conduct, changes to company policies, and written apologies.

Green alleged that, beginning May 8, 2020, Paramount engaged in nonconsensual monitoring and study of her daily habits, obtained television information and viewing data, manipulated her viewing options, and used a television device to monitor, listen to, surveil, and attempt to converse with her. She also alleged that television hosts and guests made direct and indirect comments about her, including comments about her living situation and other personal matters. Her listed theories included defamation, slander, invasion of privacy, intellectual-property theft, unfair business practices, electronic-communications and stored-communications privacy violations, racketeering, and other claims.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening requirement for complaints filed without prepaying fees. Under that requirement, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or otherwise lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also noted that it must interpret allegations from a self-represented litigant liberally.

Even under that liberal reading, the court found no factual basis or legal theory supporting a viable civil claim. It characterized Green’s allegations that Paramount surveilled and harassed her in her home through her television and collected her personal information as largely irrational or wholly incredible. The court concluded that the allegations did not provide facts suggesting that the alleged television-surveillance conduct was possible.

Rulings

The court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It denied Green’s requests for subpoenas. These rulings were based on the court’s screening determination and did not decide the truth of a viable underlying claim.

The court also directed Green to show cause, by written declaration submitted within 30 days of the order, why it should not bar her from filing any further civil action in that court without first obtaining permission. The court stated that if she did not submit the declaration, or if it did not show good cause, the court would impose that filing restriction. The order did not yet impose the filing bar.

Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion notes that Green had previously filed related frivolous actions in the court and had received warnings about possible filing restrictions.