Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Molefe v. Verizon New York, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 24, 2015

RAKWENA MOLEFE, Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON NEW YORK, INC., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, District Judge.

In this action, pro se plaintiff Rakwena Molefe ("Plaintiff") asserts a variety of claims premised on allegations that Verizon New York, Inc., has engaged, through a foreign affiliate, in surveillance, theft of, and tampering with, his electronic information and telephone calls. Plaintiff commenced this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on or about February 14, 2014. Defendant Verizon New York, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Verizon"), removed the action to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on March 17, 2014. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

In accordance with the undersigned's Individual Practices Rules, Verizon wrote to Plaintiff in advance of its anticipated motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, identifying what it contended were deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleading. (Docket entry no. 4 at 3.) Plaintiff thereafter filed an Amended Complaint, in which he asserts eleven causes of action: violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Count I); violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights (Count II); violation of Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights (Count III)[1]; violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (Count IV); violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a) (Count V); violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (Count VI); violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count VII); violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Count VIII); violation of 47 U.S.C. § 201(b) (Count IX); violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961[2] ("RICO" claim) (Count X); and civil rights violations including illegal search and seizure, free speech interference and racial profiling (Count XI).[3]

Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court has reviewed throughly all of the parties' submissions and arguments. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges that Verizon has intercepted his phone calls and e-mails through its relationship with Verint Systems Inc., allegedly an Israeli-owned and controlled entity, over a period spanning several years.[4] (Am. Compl. 2-3, 29.) Plaintiff cites to a book written by James Bamford and published in 2008, entitled The Shadow Factory, which allegedly describes Verizon's ability to monitor its network in association with the National Security Agency and other law enforcement agencies, and to an Internet site. (Am. Compl. 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Verizon is authorized and licensed to provide telephone and wire services by the United States government. (Am. Compl. 8.) The Amended Complaint includes a list detailing various telephone and Internet service disruptions (namely on June 13, 2009, on February 13, 2012, and from February 18, 2012 to February 27, 2012), Plaintiff's complaints to various domestic and foreign governmental entities and/or Verizon about the incidents, and Verizon's responses if applicable. (Am. Compl. 4-7.) Plaintiff also alleges that an unspecified "someone" blocked his ability to call an associate in South Africa during the week of August 18, 2008, and that an email Plaintiff's associate claimed to have sent went missing. (Am. Compl. 6 and Ex. 2 thereto at 7-8 (Pl.'s Letter to N.Y. Dist. Att'y, August 19, 2008).) Plaintiff also alleges that, on January 15, 2011, Verizon electronically accessed without permission his Universal Serial Bus (USB) memory card and transferred sensitive personal and business files to his wife's electronic device.[5] (Am. Compl. 19.) The Amended Complaint also refers to two suspicious deaths, and to Plaintiff's suggestion (made in an earlier letter to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office) that they may have been connected with the alleged unlawful surveillance and intrusions. (See Am. Compl. 10 and Ex. 2 thereto.) Plaintiff discusses several business ventures that failed to develop beyond the early planning stages. (Am. Compl. 19-21; Ex. 4.) Plaintiff further alleges that Verizon, through Verint Systems Inc., has an ongoing relationship with Israeli pro-apartheid groups. (Am. Compl. 22.)

Plaintiff notes in his Amended Complaint a disparity in the amounts of his Verizon bills for the months of May ($173.50), June ($187.17), July ($160.00), and August ($31.85) of 2008. (Am. Compl. 5; Ex. 1, at 2 (Pl.'s Letter to Verizon, September 8, 2008).) Plaintiff proffers no facts regarding Verizon's response, other than to state they sent one, or as to whether Plaintiff paid the alleged overcharges.

DISCUSSION

When deciding a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine whether a complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). "Submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). However, the Court is not required to accept "conclusory statements" made by the Plaintiff as true, nor do "legal conclusion[s] couched as factual allegation[s]" receive such deference. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. As a general matter, each of Plaintiff's claims is supported only by such conclusory statements and recitations of the individual statutory elements.

Deficient Allegations of State Action - Counts I, II, III, V, and XI

"To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)[6]; see also 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a) ("a person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally engages in electronic surveillance under color of law... or discloses or uses information obtained under color of law"). Plaintiff's assertion that Verizon is "authorized and licensed under the Government statutes to carr[y] wire communication signals, therefore [it] assumes the role of [the] Government" (Am. Compl. 8), is insufficient to support the state actor or color of law element. See Loce v. Time Warner Entm't Advance, 191 F.3d 256, 266 (2d Cir. 1999). Plaintiff's reliance on Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), is misplaced, as that case concerned a company town performing the role of the government. See 326 U.S. at 502. Plaintiff's further attempt to portray Verizon's alleged surveillance as "exclusively a state function" (Pl.'s Affirmation in Opp'n to Mot. 4), is unpersuasive and unsupported by applicable precedent. See Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352-53 (1974) (citing cases discussing functions "traditionally exclusively reserved to the state, " which include holding "election[s], " situations involving "company town[s], " and maintaining and operating "municipal park[s]"). Since Plaintiff has not pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly support the claim that Verizon is a state actor or acting under color of law, Counts I, II, III, V, and XI must be dismissed.

The Court turns to Plaintiff's other causes of action.

Count IV: 18 U.S.C. § 2702

Section 2702(a)(1) of Title 18 provides that "a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service, " and § 2702(a)(2) provides that "a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service." Plaintiff does not provide any factual basis for his conclusory claim of improper disclosure. He merely asserts that Verizon and non-party Verint are affiliated, that Verint "wiretap[s] and snoop[s] on clients' Internet and telephone calls at Verizon, " and that "Verint knowingly divulged [his] communication data to rogue spy networks in the US, and to foreign agents in the US, Israel and South Africa." (Am. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.