Johnson v. Facebook et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert W. Johnson
v. Civil No. 23-cv-410-JL-AJ
Facebook, et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDEDATION
Pro se plaintiff Robert W. Johnson, appearing in forma
pauperis, filed a complaint (Doc. No. 1) against social media
platform Facebook, former President Trump, Russian President
Putin and approximately twenty other defendants.1 Mr. Johnson’s
complaint is before the undersigned magistrate Judge for
preliminary review. See LR 4.3(d)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Standard of Review
The magistrate judge conducts a preliminary review of
pleadings, like Mr. Johnson’s that are filed in forma pauperis.
See LR 4.3(d). The magistrate judge may recommend to the
district judge that one or more claims be dismissed if, among
other things, the court lacks jurisdiction, a defendant is
1 In addition to Facebook and Presidents Trump and Putin,
the defendants are Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Mark Meadows,
Kenneth Chesebro, Jeffrey Clark, Jenna Ellis, Ray Smith, III,
Robert Cheeley, Cathleen Latham, Scott Hall, Stephen Lee,
Harrison Floyd, Trevian Kutti, Sidney Powell, Misty Hampton,
Michael Roman, David Shafer, Shawn Still, Twitter, and Meta,
LLC. A review of the federal PACER database shows that Mr.
Johnson has filed nearly identical lawsuits in more than thirty
Federal District Courts.
Case 1:23-cv-00410-JL-AJ Document 5 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 4

2
immune from the relief sought, or the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d). In conducting its preliminary review,
the court construes pro se complaints liberally. See Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The complaint
must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (citation omitted). The court treats as true all
well-pleaded factual allegations, and construes reasonable
inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Ocasio-Hernández v.
Fortuño-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011).
Background
Mr. Johnson, a resident of Buffalo, New York, asserts that
“[a]ll defendants committed identity theft, fraud, U.S.
constitutional violations, RICO acts and due process violations”
against him. Compl. (Doc. No. 1) at 2. The complaint contains
no factual allegations in support of these legal claims. Mr.
Johnson seeks $100,000,000 in punitive damages and “100%
ownership of defendants’ assets . . . .” Id.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a pleading which sets forth a
claim for relief shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement
of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction; (2) a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought. The “short
Case 1:23-cv-00410-JL-AJ Document 5 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 4

3
and plain statement of the claim” must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506,
512 (2002) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Under Rule 8(d)(1), each allegation in a complaint should be
“simple, concise, and direct.” “A district court has the power
to dismiss a complaint when a plaintiff fails to comply with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 8(a)(2)’s
‘short and plain statement’ requirement.” Kuehl v. FDIC, 8 F.3d
905, 908 (1st Cir. 1993).
The lack of a single factual allegation in Mr. Johnson’s
complaint as to who did what to him, when, and where, renders
his complaint susceptible of dismissal because of his non-
compliance with Rule 8(a)(2). See Educadores Puertorriqueños en
Accion v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004) (“in a[n]
. . action subject to notice pleading standards, the complaint
should at least set forth minimal facts as to who did what to
whom, when, where, and why -- although why . . . mean[ing] the
actor's state of mind, can be averred generally”). Moreover,
the complaint is subject to dismissal for failure to state a
claim for relief because the lack of factual support leaves the
court unable “to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant[s] [are] liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 678.
Case 1:23-cv-00410-JL-AJ Document 5 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 4

4
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the complaint (Doc. No. 1) should
be dismissed without prejudice. Should the district judge adopt
this recommendation and dismiss the complaint, plaintiff’s
motion for default judgment (Doc. No. 3) should be denied as
moot.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. Failure to file any objection within the specified time
waives the right to appeal the district court's Order. See
Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir.
2016). Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to this
Report and Recommendation “‘are subject to review in the
district court.’” Id. Additionally, any issues “‘not preserved
by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” Id. (citations
omitted).
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: October 11, 2023
cc: Robert Johnson, pro se
Case 1:23-cv-00410-JL-AJ Document 5 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 4